toys gender stereotype essay

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Gender Stereotypes — Gender Stereotypes Of Girls Toys

Gender Stereotypes of Girls Toys

• Categories: Gender Stereotypes

About this sample

Words: 640 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 640 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1319 words

2 pages / 1053 words

3 pages / 1199 words

5 pages / 2303 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Gender Stereotypes

This research paper discusses the impact of gender stereotypes on women advancement in the workplace. Although men declare that women have gained their rights, yet it is still obvious that there is a lot of work to do in order [...]

When it comes to smartphones, two brands that have dominated the market for years are Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Galaxy series. Both companies have loyal followings and offer high-quality devices with cutting-edge technology. [...]

Imagine walking into a fast-food restaurant and being greeted by a commercial on a television screen. The camera zooms in on a juicy burger, as an attractive woman takes a seductive bite. The message is clear: eating at this [...]

Zootopia, a widely popular animated film released by Disney in 2016, is not only a fun and entertaining movie for children, but also a thought-provoking film that addresses important social issues. One of the key themes explored [...]

A nuclear family consists of a mum and a dad and children. I am a part of a nuclear family. What society has grown up with, is that the mum wears the pants and been the main parent. Fathers are pushed further and further away [...]

Rape culture is a pervasive issue that continues to plague societies worldwide, perpetuating harmful attitudes and behaviors that normalize sexual violence. From victim-blaming to the trivialization of assault, the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Checkup

Breaking Gender Stereotypes in the Toy Box

By Perri Klass, M.D.

• Feb. 5, 2018

Did you conscientiously buy dolls for your son and trucks for your daughter, or did you try to avoid the whole thing and give them both gender-neutral artisanal wooden objects, only to be shanghaied by the princess industry and superhero underpants?

Looking at how children play with toys that fall into gender stereotypes gives us a window on children’s developing sense of what goes along with being a boy or a girl.

But it can also be an important indicator of what skills young children are acquiring as they play, and of whether their academic and professional horizons are comparatively wide — or whether they are already starting to rule things out for themselves.

[The topics parents are talking about. Evidence-based guidance. Personal stories that matter. Sign up now to get NYT Parenting in your inbox every week.]

A new study suggests the potential power of words and images to counter gender stereotypes and open up what children see as possible interests and activities for themselves. And experts say that those choices are significant because they can influence the skills children learn and the possibilities they see for themselves.

Lauren Spinner, a developmental psychologist at the University of Kent in England, was the first author on a study published in January in the journal Sex Roles , which looked at the effect of showing 4- to 7-year-olds images of children playing with either stereotypic or counter-stereotypic toys.

A researcher read aloud the words that were printed in a bubble beside the image. In one experimental group, the children followed gender stereotype: “Hello! My name is Sarah, and my favorite toy is My Little Pony! I have lots, and play with them every day.” “Hello! My name is Thomas, and every day I like to play with my cars. They’re my favorite toys!” For the other experimental group, Sarah had the car and Thomas had My Little Pony; the language was otherwise identical.

After they had seen the pictures, the children in the study were shown a set of toys, chosen to be stereotypically masculine and feminine (baby doll, jet fighter, tool kit, tea set) and asked who should play with which toy, and the children who had seen the counter-stereotypic pictures were more flexible in their answers, more open to the idea that both girls and boys might like toys from both sides of the conventional aisle.

They were also less rigid when they were asked which children from the pictures they wanted to play with; exposure to Sarah-with-the-car and Thomas-with-the-pony meant that children were more open to playing with representatives of the other gender. So the toys in the pictures affected who the children wanted as playmates.

Dr. Spinner pointed out that seeing the photos did not open up the children’s preferences for what toys they themselves wanted to play with; they were more likely to say that other boys and girls could play with a variety of toys, but the two experimental groups were equally unlikely to make those counter-stereotypic choices themselves. On the other hand, she said, it was only one exposure, and it’s possible, if there were more of those counter-stereotypic images around, that children might become more open to enjoying the whole spectrum of toys.

Laura Zimmermann, a developmental psychologist who is a professor of psychology at Shenandoah University in Virginia, was the first author on a study published last year in the Journal of Children and Media , which looked at preschool children’s responses to toy commercials. Children are showing more flexibility than they used to, she said, in terms of who they thought the ads were meant for, responding that both boys and girls, for example, could like Batman, or like the “female” line of Lego building blocks.

“Their behavior got much more stereotypical when they were asked their own preferences,” she said, and the boys especially were unwilling to say that they liked any of the ads aimed at girls.

But the ads themselves, she said, continue to reflect the same old stereotypes. “My concerns are that children’s ads shape and reinforce stereotypes,” Dr. Zimmermann said. “They are obviously not working alone; we have wider societal influences at work, but ads are powerful.”

This is not about taking away the doll, or banishing the train. “If they aren’t interested in engaging in non-stereotypic gender play that is O.K. too,” Dr. Zimmermann said in an email. “Children should be free to play with the toys they enjoy — toys should not be ‘assigned’ by gender.”

But there is also research to say that when the lines are drawn too strictly, children’s worlds become not only more divided, but also more limited. Traditionally masculine toys like blocks and puzzles, Dr. Spinner said, encourage visual and spatial skills , while traditionally feminine toys encourage communication and social skills .

“If children only play with one, then they are missing out on a whole host of skills,” she said.

They are also limiting their own interests and the scope of their futures.

“We know that these stereotypes that are being shaped and reinforced can be linked to a lot of different things from educational and occupational goals to academic ability to social development,” Dr. Zimmermann said. “It is really important to have children get this broad range of experiences.”

As children grow up, Dr. Spinner said, they do tend to become more flexible about what boys and girls can do; 7-year-olds are less rigid than 4- or 5-year-olds. But the messages they get from their environment are important, and so is the chance to play with toys — and with other children — in ways that don’t box them in too tightly.

“Mixed gender play is really important, getting boys and girls to play with one another and recognize behavioral similarities,” Dr. Spinner said. “Children can overcome their anxieties about playing with other-gender children if you can get them to understand there are a lot of similarities in what they like to play with, rather than focusing on the gender of the child.”

Somewhere between the ages of 2 and 3, children figure out whether they are boys or girls, developmental psychologists say, often citing Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of gender identity development ; they go on from there to identify the people around them as male or female, and to create rules and categories of what behaviors and interests and habits go with which identity.

“The good news or bad news is, experience makes a difference,” Dr. Zimmermann said. The images children see can reinforce stereotypes and limit their horizons, but they can also open up possibilities and lead kids to believe that they have more choices. Children are actively seeking clues about what their gender identities mean; toys and play should give them space, not narrow their choices.

Many parents have stories of a girl who insisted on rocking a toy train to sleep, or a boy who pushed a doll along the floor, making train noises, foiling well-meaning parental attempts to foster non-stereotypic play. And parents don’t have to “eradicate” all stereotypical play, Dr. Zimmermann said in an email message.

“After all, a princess can play with worms. And ninja cupcakes are quite tasty.”

A Guide to Parenting Now

Some anxious parents are choosing “sleepunders” picking kids up just before bedtime  — or even staying over with them. Here are the pros and cons to that approach.

Many parents feel the need to stuff their children’s days full of activities to keep them entertained and engaged. But boredom has its virtues .

Being a modern parent means juggling many opinions on how to do it correctly. The good news is that there’s no one way to do it right .

Parental burnout is real. Take this test  to clarify how depleted you feel — so hopefully you can get the help you need.

More American women are having kids later in life. We asked mothers who had children after 40  to share their experiences.

Millennial parents, guided by influencers, are now proudly try-hard, and they're embracing a new “gentle parenting” approach .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

How Large Are Gender Differences in Toy Preferences? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Toy Preference Research

Jac t. m. davis.

Gender Development Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RQ UK

Melissa Hines

It is generally recognized that there are gender-related differences in children’s toy preferences. However, the magnitude of these differences has not been firmly established. Furthermore, not all studies of gender-related toy preferences find significant gender differences. These inconsistent findings could result from using different toys or methods to measure toy preferences or from studying children of different ages. Our systematic review and meta-analysis combined 113 effect sizes from 75 studies to estimate the magnitude of gender-related differences in toy preferences. We also assessed the impact of using different toys or methods to assess these differences, as well as the effect of age on gender-related toy preferences. Boys preferred boy-related toys more than girls did, and girls preferred girl-related toys more than boys did. These differences were large ( d  ≥ 1.60). Girls also preferred toys that researchers classified as neutral more than boys did ( d  = 0.29). Preferences for gender-typical over gender-atypical toys were also large and significant ( d  ≥ 1.20), and girls and boys showed gender-related differences of similar magnitude. When only dolls and vehicles were considered, within-sex differences were even larger and of comparable size for boys and girls. Researchers sometimes misclassified toys, perhaps contributing to an apparent gender difference in preference for neutral toys. Forced choice methods produced larger gender-related differences than other methods, and gender-related differences increased with age.

Introduction

Gender-related toy preferences, and their origin and development, remain a controversial topic. Toys might influence children’s development of social and spatial skills (Jirout & Newcombe, 2015 ; Wong & Yeung, 2019 ) or signal later developmental changes such as sexuality (Li, Kung, & Hines, 2017 ) or aggressive behavior (Kung, Li, Golding, & Hines, 2018 ). Consequently, parents, educators, and policymakers want to know whether gendered toys might be influencing boys and girls differently (e.g., Bainbridge, 2018 ; Kamenetz & Turner, 2019 ; Tortorello, 2019 ). There are hundreds of scholarly articles documenting gender-related toy preferences, and these are often cited and shared in the popular press (e.g., Barford, 2014 ; Oksman, 2016 ). These articles, however, do not always agree on whether toys show gender differences and, for those that do, how large the differences are.

Anyone who has watched children play would probably conclude that girls and boys tend to prefer different toys, but researchers have not always been able to document these gender effects. Whereas some studies report large, stable effects for gender-related differences in children’s toy preferences (Alexander, Wilcox, & Woods, 2009 ; van de Beek, van Goozen, Buitelaar, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2009 ; Weinraub et al., 1984 ), others find ambiguous effects (Jacklin, Maccoby, & Dick, 1973 ), and still others find a mix of null and large effects (Campbell, Shirley, Heywood, & Crook, 2000 ; Serbin et al., 2001 ). Similarly, some find gender differences (i.e., different preferences in girls compared to boys), but not gender-specific preferences (i.e., a preference for same-sex over other sex toys), particularly in girls (e.g., Berenbaum & Hines, 1992 ), while others find both gender differences and gender-specific preferences, in both girls and boys (e.g., Pasterski et al., 2005 ). So, studies do not always find consistent gender effects on children’s toy preferences.

This apparent inconsistency may partly be due to variations in research design. Toy preference studies do not always use the same toys. The specific toys used in a study, and whether those toys are classified as boy-related toys, girl-related toys, or neutral toys, is not standardized across toy preference research. Additionally, toy preference studies do not always use the same methods for measuring preference. Preference can be measured in many ways, including assessing children’s actual play behavior, children’s visual attention, or children’s stated preferences, or itemizing the toys that children own or want to own. Finally, the results of toy preference studies may have changed over time, with more recent studies finding different results to earlier studies. Any of these variations may influence the size of the gender effect and may partly explain why toy preference studies do not always produce the same results.

When comparing the findings of different toy preference studies (e.g., over time), an underlying assumption is that the studies’ measurement methods should produce comparable results. Alternatively, discrepancies in the results of individual studies are often thought to result from differences in the studies’ methods. These assumptions can be tested empirically using meta-analytic techniques. Individual studies typically use a single method to measure toy preferences, so meta-analytic comparisons across studies provide a way to determine whether, and how, study methods might affect results. Similarly, meta-analytic techniques can be used to examine the sizes of gender-related differences for specific individual toys and to examine the effect of factors such as age or the dates of studies on research results. The following sections review prior research on children’s gender-related toy preferences, focusing on the potential for meta-analytic techniques to help explain the sometimes conflicting findings in this area of research.

Studies on gender-related toy preferences do not always agree on terminology, so the present review defines some key terms as follows. We refer to the set of toys that researchers think are stereotyped as for boys, or that they think boys will prefer, as boy - related toys, and we refer to the set of toys that researchers think are stereotyped for girls, or that they think girls will prefer, as girl - related toys. Together, these boy-related toys and girl-related toys are referred to as gender - related toys. We use gender differences to refer to average differences between boys and girls. An example of a gender difference might be the difference between boys’ preference for a doll or girls’ preference for a doll. Similarly, we use gender - specific preferences to refer to average differences between boy-related toys and girl-related toys. An example of a gender-specific preference might be the difference between boys’ preference for a doll and boys’ preference for a vehicle. Together, these gender differences and gender-specific preferences are referred to as gender effects .

Gender-Related Toys

Studies of children’s gender-related toy preferences do not always use the same toys, and researchers do not always select toys in a systematic way. Sometimes, researchers select and categorize toys based on the toys’ gender stereotypes, as previously rated by adults (e.g., Idle, Wood, & Desmarais, 1993 ; Le Maner-Idrissi, 1996 ; Zucker, 1977 ). Similarly, researchers sometimes select toys for a study and then ask adults to rate their gender stereotyping or gender appropriateness (e.g., Gugula, 1999 ; Guinn, 1984 ). Another approach is to cite previous work as the basis for selecting and categorizing toys, though researchers do not always indicate whether the current study was a direct replication or included some variation on the toy set (e.g., Karpoe & Olney, 1983 ). Alternatively, some investigators attempt to infer a consensus from previous work and choose toys that they judge to have been consistently gender-related (e.g., Lloyd & Smith, 1985 ). Finally, some researchers do not rely on predetermined sets of toys, but instead observe girls and boys playing in natural settings. To sort toys into gender categories, researchers using this approach may subsequently ask adults to rate the gender typicality of the toys (e.g., Downs, 1983 ), or they may group the toys by some other features that they assume are gender-typed, for example, toys that are used for art or for construction (Nelson, 2005 ).

Researchers can also be inconsistent about describing potentially relevant characteristics of the toys selected for study. For instance, some researchers have investigated the impact of color on children’s gender-related toy preference (e.g., Jadva, Hines, & Golombok, 2010 ; Weisgram, Fulcher, & Dinella, 2014 ; Wong & Hines, 2015 ), but many researchers do not report the color of the toys used in their studies. Other characteristics, such as shape, tactile softness, or newness of the toys, or the toys’ utility for social role play, mechanical movement, or propulsion, may also be important in determining children’s gender-related toy preferences (Benenson, Liroff, Pascal, & Cioppa, 1997 ; Escudero, Robbins, & Johnson, 2013 ; Hassett, Siebert, & Wallen, 2008 ; Jacklin et al., 1973 ; Jadva et al., 2010 ; Lobel & Menashri, 1993 ; Zosuls et al., 2009 ), but few studies have reported these features for the toys used in their research. Finally, researchers usually do not report statistical information needed to calculate effect sizes for individual toys, but instead report statistical results only for broader toy groupings.

Methods of Measuring Toy Preferences

Gender-related toy preference is a broad category, and we focus here on direct measurements of children’s gender-related toy preferences. We consider direct measurements to include any measurements based on children’s self-reported preferences or on children’s behavior, and we do not include measurements based on reports from parents, teachers, or retrospectively from adult participants. Direct measurements can differ from one study to another, but they can be grouped into four general categories: free play, visual preference, forced choice, and naturalistic approaches. Some variation exists among studies within each of these categories, but they are more similar to one another than they are to studies in the other categories. While all free play studies, for example, are not exactly the same, they are more similar to each other than they are to visual preference, forced choice, or naturalistic studies. In this section, we describe the defining characteristics of each method, with examples.

In free play studies, children are presented with a set of toys and allowed to play with them in an unstructured way. Toys are selected by the experimenter or other adults, and researchers sort the toys into gender categories. Sometimes additional toys are included that have been assigned an a priori gender-neutral status as well. The measure of interest is typically the amount or proportion of time that children spend playing with each toy or group of toys. Free play studies are primarily carried out in laboratory settings, but may also be conducted in schools or homes. The defining characteristic of free play studies is that children’s preference is measured based on their play behavior, but that the starting set of toys is determined by someone other than the child.

One common formulation of a free play study is to bring a child into a prepared room containing a set of toys and then to give the child a set amount of time to play with the toys. For example, a study by Serbin, Connor, Burchardt, and Citron ( 1979 ) placed children in a small room with a row of six toys and allowed children to play for 3 min. The six toys were selected by the experimenters as being stereotypically appealing to boys (three toys) or to girls (three toys). A similar formulation of the free play paradigm has been used by many subsequent studies, with minor variations. For example, Pasterski et al. ( 2005 ) used a similar procedure. However, this later study used more toys and different toys, placed the toys in a circle around the child instead of in a row, included a set of neutral toys as well as girl- and boy-related toys, and allowed each child to play for 8 min instead of three. In studies like these, children may play with more than one toy at once, or with no toys at all, resulting in a wider range of results than may be available when children are forced to choose one option from a set. Constraints on the child’s play are still present in the form of a limited set of available toys and a limited time available for play.

Other studies using a free play approach have observed children over a longer time and have assessed a wider range of behaviors, although the set of behaviors is still determined by adults. A common approach is to observe children at school or preschool and compare their play activities using a predetermined checklist. An early example of this approach was Fagot and Patterson’s ( 1969 ) study of gender-typed behavior. Researchers observed each child for a 10–15-s interval about once every 5 min across 70 min of free play. Children’s behavior in each interval was coded according to a checklist of 28 responses that had been previously defined by the researchers. The checklist included gender-related activities, such as play with girl-related and boy-related toys, as well as neutral and non-play responses, such as talking to a teacher. More recently, a similar approach has been used by Martin et al. ( 2013 ) in an investigation of the role of peers in children’s gender-typed play.

Visual Preference

In visual preference paradigms, children are presented with toys or with images of toys, either sequentially or side-by-side. Researchers using this paradigm select the toys or images to be used and assign them an a priori status as boy-related, girl-related, or neutral. The length of time that children look at a toy is scored by hand or with the help of cameras or eye-tracking software. The measure of interest is typically the proportion of time spent looking at each toy or category of toy, usually as a proportion of the overall time the child was attentive. The defining characteristic of visual preference paradigms is that children’s preferences were measured based on visual attention, rather than on physical contact or explicit choice.

Visual preference studies usually present children with images of toys, rather than the actual items. For example, in a study by Escudero, Robbins, and Johnston (2013), infants were placed on a caregiver’s lap and presented with two side-by-side images of a face and a vehicle, using multiple trials varying the faces (a real face and a doll face) and the vehicles (a real car and a toy car). Infants’ preferences were measured using a corneal reflection eye tracker. Similarly, Jadva, Hines, and Golombok ( 2010 ) presented infants with a series of side-by-side line drawings of dolls and vehicles, varying the color and left/right placement of the stimuli. Infants’ faces were recorded on video and later scored for gaze direction.

Forced Choice

In forced choice studies, the experimenter presents children with a series of choices, usually between two toy options, one of which is boy-related, and the other of which is girl-related. The choices are typically presented as a series of questions with picture aids, and the measure of interest is the proportion of choices that are gender-related in each direction out of the total number of trials. The exact implementation may vary, but the key features of forced choice methods are restricted options and, usually, a requirement to choose in front of the experimenter.

Forced choice methods have been used in toy preference research for decades. For example, DeLucia ( 1963 ) used black and white photographs of 24 toys, balanced for size, monetary value, and intricacy of movable parts. Toys were categorized as girl-related or boy-related, based on the rankings of adults regarding their appeal to boys and girls. Children were presented with pairs of pictures, asked to choose which of the pair they preferred, and given a score based on the number of the same gender-related choices that they made. Alexander and Hines ( 1994 ) used a series of cards to measure children’s gender-related interests, including toy preferences. In the toy preference portion of their assessment, each card included two scenes of stick figures engaging in play with different toys that the researchers had classified as girl-related or boy-related. The child was asked to choose his or her preferred option from each card, and given a score based on their same gender-related choices.

Naturalistic Methods

Naturalistic studies are designed to reduce the influence of the experimenter on the stimuli available and on the behavior of those being observed. These methods attempt to measure preferences without any a priori determination of the toys that are available for children to choose. Some naturalistic studies measure the gender-related toys that children own. For example, Nelson ( 2005 ) inventoried children’s toy collections in their homes and sorted the toys that children owned into gender-related categories. However, inventory studies are sometimes criticized because these toys were purchased for children by adults, so a child’s toy collection may reflect the preferences of adult purchasers, as well as the preferences of the child. Therefore, other studies have attempted to overcome this limitation by measuring children’s requests for toys, rather than the toys that they actually own. For example, Downs ( 1983 ) collected children’s letters to Santa and measured the number of gender-related toys that children had requested as Christmas presents. The measure of interest varies more in naturalistic than in other types of studies, but typically the proportion of boys and girls owning or requesting each toy or category of toy is reported. Naturalistic studies represent the only widely used approach where researchers or other adults do not make a priori decisions, independent of children, as to which toys are available to be preferred, or are of interest.

Gender-related differences in children’s toy preferences might change with age. Based on their early gender-related toy interests, children might gravitate to different social environments, enhancing their early preferences and producing a linear increase in gender-related differences with age (e.g., Golombok et al., 2008 ). Alternatively, children might be expected initially to adopt more consistent gender-related behaviors as they develop an understanding of their own gender (Kohlberg, 1966 ), but then to become more flexible in later years, as they begin to understand that social conventions are culturally determined and changeable (Carter & Patterson, 1982 ). Thus, gender effects might increase with age, or they might show a curvilinear effect with an initial increase, followed by a later decrease, in gender-related differences.

Year of Study

Changes in the wider social and political context may have affected toy preference research over time. Children’s toy preferences have been studied over more than five decades, since at least the 1960s (DeLucia, 1963 ). During this time, some meta-analytic findings have suggested that gender differences in some areas have decreased, for example, in some aspects of cognitive performance (Feingold, 1988 ). Not all reviews find a decrease in gender differences, however. For example, a meta-analysis of 50 years of data found that the gender difference in body image had increased over time (Feingold & Mazzella, 1998 ). Across a similar time period, academic and wider social perspectives on gender and toys may have changed, and these changes may have affected the results of toy preference studies.

Additionally, the perceived value of children’s gender-related behavior has changed over time. In early research, gender-related behavior was seen as necessary to healthy development, and researchers sought to identify conditions that would encourage children to engage in behaviors that were “sex-appropriate,” and to document the consequences of behaviors that were not (e.g., Anastasiow, 1965 ; Barkley, Ullman, Otto, & Brecht, 1977 ). Subsequently, however, academic approaches shifted, to view gender-related behavior as incidental (e.g., Maccoby, 1990 ) and, in some cases, harmful (e.g., Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, & Beilock, 2012 ) to healthy development. This shift in research perspective raises the question of whether there were corresponding changes in study results over time.

Previous Reviews of Toy Preference Research

Previous reviews of toy preference research have typically been narrative reviews. One meta-analysis has been conducted on a subset of toy preference studies using free play methods (Todd et al., 2018 ). The present meta-analysis extended this previous effort by including, and comparing, different methods for measuring toy preferences. Additionally, the present meta-analysis included effect sizes for gender-specific effects (e.g., how much boys prefer boy-related toys to girl-related toys), while the previous meta-analysis focused on gender differences. Further, the present meta-analysis examined whether gender differences in toy preferences were smaller or larger for specific types of toys (dolls and vehicles), while the previous meta-analysis focused only on broader groups of gender-related toys.

The Current Review and Meta-Analysis

Here we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of gender-related effects on children’s toy preferences. The present review sought to establish: (1) the magnitude of gender-related effects on children’s toy preferences; (2) whether specific toys (dolls and vehicles) were more or less gender-related than broader toy groupings; (3) whether different methods of measuring preference (free play, visual preference, forced choice, or naturalistic) found different gender effects; (4) whether child age was related to the magnitude of gender effects on children’s toy preferences; and (5) whether year of study publication was related to the magnitude of gender effects on children’s toy preferences. To assess confidence in the meta-analysis results, we also include a set of tests for publication bias, including funnel plots and regression tests.

Systematic Search Method

We located studies through an online search of journal indexing databases (Scopus, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and EBSCO), dissertation abstracts, and Google Scholar. We discontinued our literature search in March 2014. The systematic search was conducted in English-indexed journals. If the paper provided an English-language abstract and was judged eligible for inclusion, it was translated.

Search keywords included terms relevant to the predictor (gender), the outcome (toy preference), and the population (children). Each search query therefore contained three elements, including synonyms and more specific terms for each (e.g., “gender” or “sex” or “male” or “boy” and “play” or “toy” or “preference” and “children”). These terms were combined using Boolean operators to take advantage of the functionality of each database. We also recognized that the terms used for gender-related toy preference may have changed over time, and so searched specific names of toy preference measures referenced in a book of gender tests (Beere, 1990 ), and the reference lists of included studies.

Inclusion Criteria

We designed inclusion criteria that would retain a large sample of effects while limiting the analysis to studies that were statistically comparable. Studies were included if they provided empirical data on toy preferences in children aged 11 years or younger. Studies must have included gender in the report as an explanatory variable, but the study did not have to be explicitly or solely focused on gender differences. Studies must also have reported toy preferences as outcome measures. Toy preferences had to be obtained from children directly; studies that measured toy preferences through parent report, or through retrospective reporting from adult participants, were not eligible for inclusion in the present review.

We included studies with any of the following research designs: non-randomized designs, comparing boys and girls on one or more measures of toy preference; randomized or non-randomized designs testing another predictor of toy preferences, but including in the results a breakdown of the outcome measure by participant sex; and longitudinal designs, testing changes in gender-related toy preferences over time, with results presented along with some report of how results differed by participant sex. Only data from typically developing children were included in the meta-analyses; data from participants that were selected on the basis of their gender non-conformity, or a medical diagnosis, were not included.

Effect Size Calculation

Each study had corresponding effect sizes calculated and converted for the meta-analysis, using standard procedures (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011 ; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ). For the primary meta-analyses, up to five effect sizes (standardized mean differences) were calculated for each study: (1) gender difference in preference for boy-related toys; (2) gender difference in preference for girl-related toys; (3) boys’ gender-specific preference for boy-related over girl-related toys; (4) girls’ gender-specific preference for girl-related over boy-related toys; and (5) gender difference in preference for neutral toys. Effect sizes were calculated so that if the effect was positive, it was in the direction that would be expected a priori; for example, if girls prefer girl-related over boy-related toys, the effect is positive; if boys prefer boy-related over girl-related toys, the effect is positive. For neutral toys, a positive effect size would indicate that boys preferred the toys more than girls did. Studies could contribute effect sizes to all five meta-analyses, so these meta-analyses were not independent.

Study statistics were collected and transformed in the following order of preference: means and SD; direct reporting of effect sizes (e.g., standardized mean difference, correlation coefficient, odds ratio); effect measures with magnitude and direction (e.g., regression coefficients and SE, mean differences); raw numbers; results of test statistics (e.g., t values, p values); or digitized numbers read from figures using a web-based plot digitizer program (WebPlotDigitizer version 3.9; Rohatgi, 2015 ).

Meta-analysis Models

We used multilevel meta-analysis models to properly account for correlated data structures within studies that reported on several groups at once (for example, studies that used a longitudinal design, with children measured at multiple ages, or papers reporting on multiple groups). Meta-analysis models used inverse variance weights and restricted maximum likelihood estimation.

We also ran sensitivity analyses to test that the results were robust to using the following: standard random-effects meta-analysis, multilevel meta-analysis, and multivariate parameterization of the multilevel meta-analysis. Substantive results were consistent across all types of analysis.

Types of Toys: Dolls and Vehicles

Four multilevel meta-analyses examined effect sizes for gender-related preferences for two specific categories of toys: dolls and vehicles. These assessed the gender difference in preference for dolls, the gender difference in preference for vehicles, boys’ gender-specific preference for vehicles, and girls’ gender-specific preference for dolls. We statistically compared the results of the meta-analyses of dolls and vehicles to the results of the meta-analyses of the broader toy groupings, using a modified t test for comparing standardized effect sizes. We could not include similar analyses for toy categories other than dolls and vehicles, because insufficient numbers of studies reported results for any other specific toy categories.

Study Method, Child Age, and Year of Publication

We used moderator analyses to test for the effects of the study method (free play, visual preference, forced choice, and naturalistic), child age, and year of publication. Studies were not excluded from the main meta-analyses if they did not report information on a moderator (e.g., if child age was unclear), but they were excluded from the analysis for that moderator. In addition, all studies were included in the analysis of method as a moderator, as all the studies fit into one of the four categories of methods. We used multivariate multilevel mixed effects meta-regression models.

Publication Bias

A series of funnel plots and corresponding regression tests (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997 ) assessed whether the effect sizes differed for small and large studies. Since large studies tend to be published even if they report small effect sizes, a high rate of large studies with small effect sizes and small studies with large effect sizes would suggest publication bias in the sample.

Statistical Software

All analyses were conducted using the statistical software R . Specific packages included metafor for frequentist meta-analysis models (Viechtbauer, 2010 ) and basic plot functions to create figures.

Systematic Search Results

The systematic search identified 3,508 unique sources. Twenty-eight sources (0.8%) could not be obtained to review for eligibility (these were: 1 erratum; 1 reply; 3 sources in non-English-language journals that we could not access; 12 sources in English-language journals that we could not access, all published between 1973 and 1987; 1 source in a non-indexed journal; 7 dissertations; 1 conference paper; and 2 sources with no reference information). Of the 3,508 sources obtained, 981 were marked provisionally eligible according to the title and keywords, and, on inspection of the abstract, 271 of these were marked provisionally eligible. Of these, on inspection of the full text, 196 studies had no comparative data, did not report on toy preferences, did not include children as participants, or did not report sufficient statistics to calculate an effect size. These studies were excluded, as reported in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009 ) in Fig.  1 . 1 The final set of 75 papers eligible for the meta-analysis contained 113 effect sizes for gender-related differences in toy preferences. The number of effect sizes exceeded the number of papers because some studies contained multiple effect sizes (e.g., because of multiple age groups within a study or multiple studies within a paper).

PRISMA flow diagram for attrition of publications included in the systematic review. Numbers in brackets are number of sources

Description of Toy Preference Studies

Study characteristics are summarized in Table  1 .

Table 1

List of studies included in the meta-analysis of gender-related differences in toy preferences, with key characteristics

a Study location was reported in the paper

b Study location was inferred from the location of the primary author’s affiliation

The average age of children in toy preference studies ranged from a minimum of 3 months (Alexander, Wilcox, & Farmer, 2009 ; Campbell et al., 2000 ; Escudero et al., 2013 ) to a maximum of 11 years (Boldizar, 1991 ; McHale, Kim, Whiteman, & Crouter, 2004 ). The number of studies published on gender-related toy preferences rose in the late 1970s to early 1980s, and new studies continued to be published throughout the 1990s, 2000s, and to the present. Most studies were conducted in the U.S., Canada, and the UK, but studies were also conducted in Australia, Finland, Sweden, and Israel (see Table  1 ).

Studies’ operational definitions of boy-related toys, girl-related toys, and neutral toys were not always consistent and in some cases overlapped. Vehicles and guns were almost always categorized as boy-related. Dolls were almost always categorized as girl-related. Other types of toys included active toys, such as sandpits and skipping ropes; appearance-related toys, such as brush and comb sets and makeup kits; toys for arts and crafts activities, such as Play-Doh or clay; household-related toys, such as tea sets and toy stoves; structures, such as houses, parking garages, and castles; writing tools; musical instruments; as well as a range of other toys. Figure  2 shows the number of studies that used specific toys, and their author-defined gender-related classifications.

Toys used as girl-related, boy-related, and neutral toys as listed in method sections of studies included in the meta-analysis. Studies could contribute more than one toy to the figure. These toys were mentioned in method sections of studies, but data were not typically reported for each individual toy. Most studies reported statistics for groups of toys, but not for individual toys

Dolls and vehicles, for girls and for boys, respectively, were frequently used in toy preference studies. Furthermore, when a study included only a single toy for each gender, it often included a doll as a girl-related toy and a vehicle as a boy-related toy. Therefore, there was enough information available about dolls and vehicles, specifically, to test whether these toys showed the same gender differences as broader groups of gender-related toys.

We therefore conducted two sets of analyses. First, we analyzed gender effects on children’s preferences for boy-related toys compared to girl-related toys, broadly defined by study authors. Second, we analyzed gender effects on children’s preferences for dolls compared to vehicles. We compared the results for the broader toy groupings to the results for dolls and vehicles, to check whether the broader results were replicated with only the smaller subset of well-defined and often used toys.

Gender Effects on Toy Preferences

Gender difference in preference for boy-related toys.

The multilevel meta-analysis of the gender difference in preference for boy-related toys included a total of 108 effect sizes. Boys preferred boy-related toys more than girls did, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 1.83, 95% CI = 0.96–2.71, p  < .001). The regression test for funnel plot asymmetry showed no evidence of publication bias, t (106) = − 0.49, p  = .626.

Gender Difference in Preference for Girl-Related Toys

The multilevel meta-analysis of the gender difference in preference for girl-related toys included a total of 108 effect sizes. Girls preferred girl-related toys more than boys did, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 1.60, 95% CI = 0.76–2.43, p  < .001), and not significantly different from the gender difference in preference for boy-related toys, z  = 0.43, p  = .665. The regression test for funnel plot asymmetry showed no evidence of publication bias, t (106) = − 1.29, p  = .201.

Boys’ Gender-Specific Preference for Boy-Related Toys Over Girl-Related Toys

The multilevel meta-analysis of boys’ gender-specific preference for boy-related toys included a total of 104 effect sizes. Boys preferred boy-related toys to girl-related toys, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 3.48, 95% CI = 1.17–5.79, p  = .003). The regression test for funnel plot asymmetry showed no evidence of publication bias, t (102) = − 1.37, p  = .174.

Girls’ Gender-Specific Preference for Girl-Related Toys Over Boy-Related Toys

The multilevel meta-analysis of girls’ gender-specific preference for girl-related toys included a total of 109 effect sizes. Girls preferred girl-related toys to boy-related toys, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.61–1.82, p  < .001) and was not significantly different than boys’ gender-specific preference for boy-related toys over girl-related toys, z  = 1.84, p  = .066. The regression test for funnel plot asymmetry showed no evidence of publication bias, t (107) = − 1.35, p  = .180.

Gender Difference in Preference for Neutral Toys

The multilevel meta-analysis of the gender difference in preference for neutral toys included a total of 27 effect sizes. Girls preferred neutral toys more than boys did, and this effect was small but significant ( d  = − 0.29, 95% CI = − 0.56 to − 0.02, p  = .039). The regression test for funnel plot asymmetry suggested possible publication bias, t (25) = − 2.05, p  = .051. A follow-up trim-and-fill analysis (Duval & Tweedie, 2000 ) estimated two missing studies on the left side of the funnel plot. The revised meta-analysis estimate still showed girls preferring neutral toys significantly more than boys did ( d  = − 0.29, 95% CI = − 0.55 to − 0.03, p  = .029).

Vehicles and Dolls Compared to Broader Gender-Related Groups of Toys

Gender difference in preference for vehicles.

The multilevel meta-analysis of the gender difference in preference for vehicles included a total of 28 effect sizes. Boys preferred vehicles more than girls did, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 2.44, 95% CI = 0.52–4.35, p  = .013).

Gender Difference in Preference for Dolls

The multilevel meta-analysis of the gender difference in preference for dolls included a total of 29 effect sizes. Girls preferred dolls more than boys did, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 4.12, 95% CI = 0.22–8.03, p  = .038) and significantly larger than the gender difference in preference for toy vehicles, t (55) = 4.04, p  < .001.

Boys’ Gender-Specific Preference for Vehicles Over Dolls

The multilevel meta-analysis of boys’ gender-specific preference for vehicles included a total of 27 effect sizes. Boys preferred vehicles to dolls, and this effect was large and statistically significant ( d  = 3.10, 95% CI = 0.73–5.47, p  = .010).

Girls’ Gender-Specific Preference for Dolls Over Vehicles

The multilevel meta-analysis of girls’ gender-specific preference for dolls included a total of 27 effect sizes. Girls preferred dolls to vehicles, and this effect was large but not statistically significant with a two-tailed test ( d  = 3.51, 95% CI = − 0.62 to 7.65, p  = .095). It also was not significantly different from the effect size for boys’ preference for vehicles over dolls, t (52) = 0.87, p  = .388.

Vehicles and Dolls Compared to Broader Toy Groupings

Figure  3 summarizes the effect sizes for children’s gender-related preferences for toy vehicles and dolls, and the effect sizes for children’s gender-related preferences for broader groupings of boy-related and girl-related toys. The gender difference in preference for vehicles was significantly larger than the gender difference in preference for all boy-related toys, t (134) = 3.21, p  = .002. Similarly, the gender difference in preference for dolls was significantly larger than the gender difference in preference for all girl-related toys, t (135) = 6.72, p  < .001. Girls’ gender-specific preference for dolls was significantly larger than their gender-specific preference for all girl-related toys, t (129) = 5.61, p  < .001. Boys’ gender-specific preference for vehicles was larger than their gender-specific preference for all boy-related toys, but this was not statistically significant, t (129) = 1.46, p  = .148.

Standardized effect sizes for gender differences in children’s preferences for vehicles and dolls only compared to broad groups of boy-related, girl-related toys. Error bars show standard errors

Moderator Analyses

We found some covariance of measurement methods with child age, but not complete confounding, F (3,105) = 12.55, p  < .001. Visual preference studies focused on infants, and children in these studies were younger than those in the studies using free play ( t [61.78] = 7.76, p  < .001), forced choice ( t [32.96] = 8.23, p  < .001), or naturalistic ( t [6.96] = 5.46, p  < .001) methods. We therefore conducted separate meta-regressions for each predictor, because one of the assumptions of meta-regression is that the predictor variables are independent. To test our assumptions, we conducted meta-regressions including interaction terms for the independent effects of age within each measurement method and using curvilinear terms for child age. All of the interaction and curvilinear terms were small and not statistically significant, so we proceeded with separate linear meta-regressions for method of measuring preference, age, and publication year.

Method of Measuring Preference

Method of measuring preference was operationalized as a categorical predictor with four levels: free play, visual preference, forced choice, and naturalistic methods. This four-level predictor was converted into a reference category (free play, since this was the largest category) and three dummy variables for the three other categories (visual preference, forced choice, and naturalistic). Analyses were multilevel meta-regressions with the gender effects (gender differences and gender-specific preferences) as the outcomes and dummy variables for different methods of measuring preference as the predictors. Figure  4 shows the standardized effect sizes for different methods of measuring gender-related toy preferences.

Standard effect sizes for free play, visual preference, forced choice, and naturalistic methods of measuring gender-related toy preferences. Note : neutral toys are not presented because almost all studies that gave children a neutral option were free play studies (22 of 29)

The Effect of Method of Measuring Preference on the Gender Difference in Preference for Boy-Related Toys

Forced choice methods showed larger gender differences in preference for boy-related toys than the reference category (free play methods), b  = 3.05, 95% CI = 1.09–5.01, p  = .002, but there were no significant differences between the reference category (free play methods) and visual preference, b  = − 0.83, 95% CI = − 3.49 to 1.83, p  = .542, or naturalistic methods, b  = 0.18, 95% CI = − 2.68 to 3.04, p  = .901.

The Effect of Method of Measuring Preference on the Gender Difference in Preference for Girl-Related Toys

Forced choice methods found larger gender differences in preference for girl-related toys than the reference category (free play), b  = 2.70, 95% CI = 0.80–4.59, p  = .005, but there were no significant differences between the reference category (free play) and visual preference, b  = − 0.53, 95% CI = − 3.14 to 2.08, p  = .689, or naturalistic methods, b  = 0.06, 95% CI = − 2.72 to 2.84, p  = .965.

The Effect of Method of Measuring Preference on Boys’ Gender-Specific Preference for Boy-Related Toys Over Girl-Related Toys

In boys, there was no significant effect of method (forced choice b  = 2.09, 95% CI = − 3.42 to 7.60, p  = .458, visual preference b  = − 3.25, 95% CI = − 11.66 to 5.17, p  = .450, naturalistic methods b  = − 2.32, 95% CI = − 10.92 to 6.28, p  = .597, compared to the reference category free play) on gender-specific preference.

The Effect of Method of Measuring Preference on Girls’ Gender-Specific Preference for Girl-Related Toys Over Boy-Related Toys

In girls, forced choice methods found larger gender-specific preference than the reference category (free play), b  = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.17–2.93, p  = .028, but there were no significant differences between the reference category (free play) and studies that used visual preference, b  = − 0.40, 95% CI = − 2.42 to 1.63, p  = .700, or naturalistic methods, b  = 0.33, 95% CI = − 1.86 to 2.51, p  = .770.

The Effect of Method of Measuring Preference on the Gender Difference in Preference for Neutral Toys

There was no significant effect of method of measuring preference (forced choice b  = 0.12, 95% CI = − 0.77 to 1.02, p  = .789, naturalistic b  = − 0.35, 95% CI = − 1.31 to 0.61, p  = .470, compared to the reference category, free play), on the size of the gender difference in children’s preference for neutral toys. These results could be unreliable, however, as 22 of 29 studies that provided a neutral toy option were free play studies. No studies used visual preference to measure gender differences in preference for neutral toys.

Age was operationalized as a continuous moderator, with each effect estimate assigned the average age reported for children in that sample (since individual-level data were not available).

The Effect of Age on the Gender Difference in Preference for Boy-Related Toys

The size of the gender difference in preference for boy-related toys increased significantly with child age, b  = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.00–0.05, p  = .027.

The Effect of Age on the Gender Difference in Preference for Girl-Related Toys

The size of the gender difference in preference for girl-related toys increased significantly with child age, b  = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.00–0.05, p  = .028.

The Effect of Age on Boys’ Gender-Specific Preference for Boy-Related Toys Over Girl-Related Toys

The size of boys’ gender-specific preference for boy-related over girl-related toys increased significantly with child age, b  = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.02–0.11, p  = .004.

The Effect of Age on Girls’ Gender-Specific Preference for Girl-Related Toys Over Boy-Related Toys

The size of girls’ gender-specific preference for girl-related over boy-related toys did not change significantly with child age, b  = 0.01, 95% CI = − 0.01 to 0.03, p  = .198.

The Effect of Age on the Gender Difference in Preference for Neutral Toys

The size of the gender difference in preference for neutral toys decreased significantly with child age, b  = − 0.01, 95% CI = − 0.02 to − 0.01, p  < .001.

Publication Year

Publication year was operationalized as a continuous moderator, with each effect estimate assigned the year of publication of the study in which it was reported.

The Effect of Publication Year on the Gender Difference in Preference for Boy-Related Toys

There was no significant effect of publication year on the size of the gender difference in preference for boy-related toys, b  < − 0.03, 95% CI = − 0.09 to 0.03, p  = .309.

The Effect of Publication Year on the Gender Difference in Preference for Girl-Related Toys

There was no significant effect of publication year on the size of the gender difference in preference for girl-related toys, b  < − 0.05, 95% CI = − 0.11 to 0.01, p  = .103.

The Effect of Publication Year on Boys’ Gender-Specific Preference for Boy-Related Toys Over Girl-Related Toys

There was no significant effect of publication year on the size of boys’ preference for boy-related over girl-related toys, b  = 0.02, 95% CI = − 0.15 to 0.19, p  = .833.

The Effect of Publication Year on Girls’ Gender-Specific Preference for Girl-Related Toys Over Boy-Related Toys

There was no significant effect of publication year on the size of girls’ preference for girls’ toys over boys’ toys, b  = − 0.03, 95% CI = − 0.08 to 0.01, p  = .144.

The Effect of Publication Year on the Gender Difference in Preference for Neutral Toys

There was no significant effect of publication year on the size of the gender differences in preference for neutral toys, b  = 0.01, 95% CI = − 0.00 to 0.03, p  = .117.

We found a broad consistency of results across the large body of research on children’s gender-related toy preferences: children showed large and reliable preferences for toys that were related to their own gender. Thus, according to our review, gender-related toy preferences may be considered a well-established finding. Our results, with 75 studies and a range of toy preference measurements, complement and extend a previous meta-analysis of 16 studies focused on free play (Todd et al., 2018 ).

However, our meta-analyses also revealed some gaps that could prevent confident inferences about the drivers and consequences of children’s gender-related toy preferences. These gaps could form priority targets for future research. Our analyses also revealed some emergent patterns in the data, especially in how gender-related preferences for broad groups of toys differed in some respects from those for dolls and vehicles, how study results varied according to study method, and how gender-related differences in toy preferences related to child age.

Toy Selection and Gender Categorization

The way that toys are selected, and categorized, as boy-related or girl-related, is not standardized in the present research. Studies in our review appeared to treat the gender categorization of toys as uncontroversial, even though, according to our review, it was not uncommon for toys to be assigned to different gender categories in different studies. For example, in some studies, blocks were classified as boy-related toys (e.g., Alexander & Saenz, 2012 ; Benenson et al., 1997 ; Fagot & Patterson, 1969 ), and in other studies they were classified as neutral toys (e.g., Cherney et al., 2003 ; Guinn, 1984 ; Wood, Desmarais, & Gugula, 2002 ). Similarly, drawing toys were sometimes categorized as girl-related toys (e.g., Berenbaum & Hines, 1992 ; Martin et al., 2013 ), and sometimes as neutral toys (e.g., Berenbaum & Snyder, 1995 ; Pasterski et al., 2005 ); and stuffed toys were equally likely to be classified as girl-related toys (e.g., DeLucia, 1963 ; Jacklin et al., 1973 ) as neutral toys (e.g., Alexander & Saenz, 2012 ; Idle et al., 1993 ; Moller & Serbin, 1996 ), but were also sometimes classified as boy-related toys (e.g., Stagnitti, Rodger, & Clarke, 1997 ). This pattern suggests that researchers sometimes disagree on what toys are boy-related, girl-related, or neutral.

In addition to finding that researchers sometimes disagreed on toy classifications, we also found that researchers typically did not report how they had selected toys for study or how they had assigned the toys to gender categories. We suspect that, in most cases, researchers used a simple heuristic method based on perceived cultural stereotypes. There are two problems with this type of approach. First, as noted above, toys categorized using this approach do not always fall into the same gender category in different studies. If one study includes a stuffed toy in the category “girls’ toys” and another study includes a stuffed toy in the category “neutral toys,” they may well report different results, even if the true underlying effect they are measuring is the same. Second, at its extreme, this problem may manifest as criterion contamination, in which gender-typed toys are defined by the results of the study. That is, the researchers may use many toys and select as “gender-related” toys the ones that they find to be differentially preferred by gender. At best, this tautology limits the generalizability of study results to other samples. At worst, it could invalidate the study.

Using methods that avoid confusion about toy categorization could be a priority for future research on children’s gender-related toy preferences. As also suggested by Fine ( 2015 ), this field could benefit from researchers specifying more clearly the ways in which they selected and categorized toys. Depending on the goal of the study, this selection and categorization might be based on different criteria. For example, a study examining whether stereotypes about children’s toy preferences relate to children’s actual preferences, might select toys based on adults’ independent ratings of the gender stereotyping of toys. In contrast, a study of the effect of a particular mechanism, such as social, cognitive, or hormonal influences, on toy preferences might select toys based on prior studies’ findings that certain toys are on average preferred by girls or boys. Overall, the important point is that researchers report more clearly how they selected toys and assigned toys to gender categories.

Researchers also have begun to investigate specific hypotheses about what characteristics of different toys might make them appeal more to boys or to girls. For instance, it has been suggested that color or shape might influence children’s gender-related preferences (e.g., Jadva et al., 2010 ; Weisgram et al., 2014 ; Wong & Hines, 2015 ). Similarly, it has been suggested that affordance of activity, motion, or propulsion might influence these preferences (Alexander & Hines, 2002 ; Benenson et al., 1997 ; Hassett et al., 2008 ; for a review, see Zosuls & Ruble, 2018 ). To evaluate these suggestions, it would be useful if researchers could provide color images, or full descriptions, of the toys used in the research they report. Similarly, it would be useful for this purpose, as well as for future reviews, if researchers could provide descriptive statistics, including means and SD or similar, by sex, for individual toys used, and not just for toy groupings.

To test whether the meta-analysis results were affected by researchers’ definitions of toy gender, we analyzed the subset of effect sizes that related to a very narrow definition of boy-related toys and girl-related toys: specifically, vehicles and dolls. These toys were the only ones for which sufficient data had been reported to allow reliable meta-analyses. The gender effects observed in the overall meta-analyses were broadly replicated with this more narrowly defined subset of toys, giving us confidence that our overall meta-analytic results were not entirely dependent on how researchers had chosen to categorize toys in regard to gender.

Furthermore, we found that girls’ gender-specific preference for dolls over vehicles was larger than their preference for broadly defined groups of girl-related toys. However, despite the large effect size, girls’ gender-specific preference for dolls over vehicles was not statistically significant, as this effect also showed large meta-analytic statistical variance. The large meta-analytic statistical variance is due to a combination of large variances in girls’ preference for dolls within the studies, variation between studies introducing additional statistical variance, and a smaller total number of studies that reported separate statistics for dolls as compared to broadly defined toy groups. In addition, the broadly defined toy groups included toys that, as mentioned above, were classified as neutral in some studies but girl-related in others. If toys are classified consistently, girls may show gender-related preferences at least as large as those of boys.

Culture and Gender-Related Toy Preferences

Cultural perceptions of play, including play with toys, may differ in different cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups. For example, play is viewed as central to children’s cognitive and social development in many Western, technologically developed societies, but as less important in more traditional societies (Roopnarine, 2010 ). Children in different cultures may also have different referential concepts for appropriate gender-related behavior, due to cultural variation in gender norms (Pfeiffer & Butz, 2005 ; Wood & Eagly, 2002 ). This possibility is particularly relevant to toy preferences, because there may be cultural variations in the toys that are available, culturally relevant, and gender-related.

Nevertheless, little empirical research is presently available on cultural variation in gender-related toy preferences. Our review revealed that most toy preference studies focus on the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Australia. Of those studies conducted outside English-speaking industrialized nations, one was conducted in France (Le Maner-Idrissi, 1996 ), one in Finland (Lamminmäki et al., 2012 ), four in Sweden (Nelson, 2005 ; Nordenström, Servin, Bohlin, Larsson, & Wedell, 2002 ; Serbin et al., 2001 ; Servin, Bohlin, & Berlin, 1999 ), and one in the Netherlands (van de Beek et al., 2009 ). An additional study included some participants from Hungary, along with participants from the UK (Turner & Gervai, 1995 ). These studies did not report different results to the studies from the English-speaking countries, even when researchers had specifically hypothesized that they would (e.g., Nelson, 2005 ). In global perspective, however, these countries are very similar in terms of industrialization, wealth, education, media access, democracy, and gender equality. Consequently, children in these countries probably have very similar toys available to them and similar access to information about dominant social stereotypes around these toys. It remains an open question, then, whether children in cultures with radically different stereotype referents and social norms would show the same gender-related toy preferences to those found in the current meta-analysis.

We did not formally investigate other aspects of cultural diversity, such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status, because these also have not received much attention in empirical studies of gender-related toy preferences. Participants in most toy preference studies are not very ethnically diverse, and so it may not be practical to report results by ethnicity. We found three studies (out of our total 75) that reported toy preferences by ethnicity. Two of these studies were conducted in the USA and reported no significant differences in gender-related toy preferences between children of Hispanic and non-Hispanic background (Goble, 2012), or Native American and non-Native American background (Guinn, 1984 ). In contrast, another study based in the U.S. found that ethnicity might affect children’s preferences for gender-related activities, including play with toys, via children’s social networks (Martin et al., 2013 ). Furthermore, in recent years, the wider field of gender development research has paid increasing attention to the intersectionality of gender, ethnicity, and other identities (e.g., Shields, 2008 ). This trend in the wider field may translate in future to more studies investigating gender-related toy preferences in diverse social groups.

Methods of Measuring Toy Preference Are Important

Studies may find different gender effects on children’s toy preferences, depending on the method they use to measure toy preferences. We evaluated four categories of study methods: free play methods, where children were given access to a set of toys and observed playing, however, they liked; visual preference measures, where children were asked to look at pictures of toys; forced choice methods, where children were asked to choose toys or pictures of toys, typically in front of an experimenter; and naturalistic methods, where children’s toy options were not predefined by the researchers or other adults. We found that forced choice methods consistently showed larger gender differences than other methods.

There are two possible explanations for this pattern. One is the potential demand characteristics of forced choice paradigms. A request to publicly choose an option may be interpreted as evaluative by children, who then feel obliged to give the answer that they feel is “correct,” rather than indicate their actual preference. Children’s propensity to misunderstand requests for information as tests has been noted in other contexts (e.g., Lamb et al., 2003 ). Another possibility is that the paradigm creates a false dichotomy. In forced choice methods, the child is usually presented with one boy-related option and one girl-related option and asked to choose between them. There is usually not a neutral option, and, generally, the child must choose only one option and reject the other. In contrast, in a free play paradigm, children typically have more response options available, such as several toys associated with each gender, or neutral toys as well as gender-related toys. Even if only two toys are available, the child has more options than in most forced choice paradigms. For example, if a doll and a car are available, a child may choose to play with the doll, play with the car, play with both the doll and the car, or play with neither. In most forced choice methods, however, children must choose one and only one of two options.

Forced choice methods, in their current form, do not give comparable results to other methods of measuring gender-related toy preferences. Nevertheless, forced choice methods can be an efficient and easily administered measurement tool and therefore may be appropriate for studies where, for example, data need to be collected across a very large group or under difficult conditions. Future investigators wishing to measure gender-related toy preferences with an easily administered tool might do so, however, with the aim of minimizing artificial inflation in effect sizes. For instance, a procedure in which the experimenter cannot see which option the child selects, and the child knows that their response is not seen, might be useful. It also might be useful to include neutral options, as well as gender-related options, and allow the range of possible choices to include “both” or “neither.” These modifications of forced choice methods could provide results that are more comparable to other methods of measuring toy preference and perhaps are more reflective of children’s actual gender-related preferences.

Child Age and Gender-Related Toy Preferences

We found that gender differences in preferences for gender-related toys increased linearly with child age. Our results further suggested that this pattern could be explained by boys’ showing increased preference for gender-typical over gender-atypical toys with age, while girls’ preferences for gender-typical over gender-atypical toys did not increase significantly with age. Similarly, the previous meta-analysis of free play studies (Todd et al., 2018 ) found an increase in gender-related play with age in boys, although they did not find increasing gender differences. This may reflect a difference in the power of the two meta-analyses; the previous meta-analysis included 16 studies, whereas the current meta-analysis included 75 studies. We did not find significant curvilinear effects of age on children’s gender-related toy preferences.

Our findings of linear effects contrast with those of some prior investigations of age effects on children’s gender-related toy preferences. For example, Campbell et al. ( 2000 ) measured infants’ gender-related visual preferences longitudinally at ages 3, 9, and 18 months. They found that preferences did not change with age, but the infants were all very young compared to the age range in the wider literature and in the current meta-analysis.

In contrast, our meta-analytic findings suggest that boys’ and girls’ gender-related toy preferences increase with age in a linear fashion. These findings resemble findings for a broader measure of children’s gender-typical behavior, the Pre-School Activities Inventory (PSAI). The PSAI is a 24-item parent report inventory that asks about children’s gender-typed toy preferences and about children’s gender-related activity and playmate preferences. A longitudinal, population study in which the PSAI was completed by a parent to describe their child at ages 2, 3, and 5 years also found that both boys and girls became increasingly gender-typed with age (Golombok et al., 2008 ).

Our results suggest that children’s toy preferences might become more gender-related with age, as predicted by several theories of gender development. Children might be encouraged, through socialization pressures such as modeling and reinforcement, to prefer same gender-related toys, and the effects of this socialization may accumulate as they get older (Fagot, Rodgers, & Leinbach, 2000 ). Additionally, based on their early gender-related toy interests, children might gravitate to different social environments, enhancing their early preferences (Liben & Bigler, 2002 ; Martin et al., 2013 ). Finally, differences in children’s prenatal and early postnatal hormone exposure may dynamically interact with social environments and cognitive processes to increase children’s gender-related preferences over time (Hines, 2012 ). Together, these social and cognitive effects, and their interactions with early hormonal influences, may explain the linear increase in gender-related differences with age.

The findings of our meta-analysis, however, are not a substitute for a large, longitudinal study of children’s gender-related toy preferences. We used meta-analytic techniques to compare gender-related preferences in children from different age groups, reported in different studies. Our analysis, therefore, was cross-sectional and does not have the inferential power of a well-controlled longitudinal study. Our results would be best confirmed by a future longitudinal study of children’s gender-related toy preferences from infancy to pre-pubertal age. The longitudinal parent report study using the PSAI (Golombok et al., 2008 ) is the closest existing example and found similar results to our meta-analysis.

Gender-Related Toy Preferences Over Time

We found no change in the magnitude of gender-related differences in toy preferences across year of publication. The results of the moderator analyses suggested that gender effects on children’s toy preferences have remained generally constant in magnitude across the past five decades. This finding might seem surprising. Since the earliest studies on gender-related toy preferences, gender-atypical behavior and preferences have become increasingly socially acceptable. Perhaps the lack of any discernible pattern of change results from different social pressures influencing gender-related toy preferences in different directions. For example, growing acceptance of gender-atypical behavior may be countered by increasing gender segregation of the toy market.

Contrary to our results, a previous meta-analysis of children’s toy preferences (Todd et al., 2018 ) found that boys and girls played more with gender-related toys in earlier studies than in more recent studies. Todd et al. suggested that increasing gender equality in Western societies could influence children to play with neutral toys, due to increased advertising to children about gender-neutral toys. A recent analysis of online toy marketing, however, found that more toys were marketed for “boys only” or for “girls only” than for both (Auster & Mansbach, 2012 ), and an analysis of department store catalogs concluded that gender differentiation in toy advertising had increased since the 1980s as marketers employed gender stereotypes to encourage sales (Sweet, 2013 ). Taken together, these analyses challenge the view that gender-related toy advertising is decreasing with time. Alternatively, the previous finding could be partly explained by the smaller time frame considered in the prior meta-analytic review; the prior review covered about 35 years of research, while the present review covered 50 years.

It may be that children’s preferences are robust to social influences at this macrolevel; or that, despite social change, the underlying cultural environment regarding gendered toys has not changed. A similar result was found in a systematic review of gender stereotypes from the 1970s to the present. Rudman and Glick ( 2008 ) hypothesized that women’s changing social roles would be reflected in changing stereotypes of women. Although they found a change in women’s self-concept over time, they also found that more general stereotypes of women’s personalities had not changed. They suggested that the lack of change might be due to people viewing personality as part of the fundamental essence of gender, and therefore being reluctant to modify their stereotypic beliefs about personality. A similar explanation may also apply to toy preferences: if people view toy preferences as an essential part of a child’s gender, they may be unlikely to change their gender-related beliefs about toy preferences. Children may then adapt their actual toy preferences to reflect broader societal beliefs.

Limitations

The meta-analysis could only include data that were reported in the individual toy preference studies. Therefore, we could not analyze variables such as color or shape, or individual toys other than dolls and vehicles. In future research, if investigators report more information about toy characteristics and about individual toys, it may be possible to discover more about what characteristics of different toys make them more likely to be preferred by one gender or another.

Our literature search covers papers published to March 2014 and does not include papers published outside of this time frame. More recent papers may therefore be missing from the current meta-analysis. The current meta-analysis, however, synthesizes 50 years of research on toy preferences and finds that toy preference effect sizes have not changed significantly over time. Thus, results from a new review including more recent papers would be unlikely to differ from what we report.

We focused on gender-related preferences in typically developing children. Some studies selected participants specifically because they were not typically developing (for example, clinical samples of children with genetic variants causing atypical early hormone environments, or children who showed gender-related behavior that was noticeably different from their peers). To include these atypical populations in our study might have skewed the results, so we did not include them. Our results, therefore, may not apply to clinical populations.

Additionally, we meta-analyzed only direct measures of children’s toy preferences. We did not, for example, include parent report measures. Similarly, we did not include broader aspects of children’s gender-related behavior, such as activity preferences, playmate preferences, or sex role identification (e.g., Brown, 1956 ). Additionally, we did not search for these broader terms, so we may have missed papers that included toy preferences in a broader measure of sex role identification or androgyny (e.g., Zucker & Torkos, 1989 ). It would be interesting to know whether meta-analyses from these other sources of data and types of gender-related behavior would show similar outcomes. We hope that the current systematic review and meta-analysis will encourage such studies.

Conclusions

Meta-analyses of gender-related differences in children’s toy preferences found that gender differences and gender-specific effects on children’s toy preferences are large and reliable, and that some toys that researchers have classified as neutral may actually be preferred by girls. Also, the meta-analytic results suggest that girls and boys show gender-related differences of similar magnitude, both for broad groups of toys and for dolls and vehicles, specifically. In addition, forced choice methods show larger gender-related differences than other methods, and gender-related differences increase with age, but have not changed in size over historical time. Few prior studies have reported data for individual toys or for varied cultures, ethnicities, or socioeconomic groups. Future research could usefully report how toys were chosen for study and classified into gender categories and report descriptive statistics for the individual toys used. Useful future studies might analyze children’s gender-related toy preferences in different cultures, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups.

Acknowledgements

J. T. M. Davis was supported by a Gates Cambridge scholarship during the production of this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

1 Interested readers may contact corresponding author for the references that were gathered in the systematic search but were not included in the meta-analysis.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• (Asterisk indicates studies that appeared in the meta-analysis)
• *Alexander GM, Hines M. Gender labels and play styles: Their relative contribution to children’s selection of playmates. Child Development. 1994; 65 (3):869–879. doi: 10.2307/1131424. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alexander GM, Hines M. Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates ( Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus ) Evolution & Human Behavior. 2002; 23 (6):467–479. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Alexander GM, Saenz J. Early androgens, activity levels and toy choices of children in the second year of life. Hormones and Behavior. 2012; 62 (4):500–504. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.08.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Alexander GM, Wilcox T, Farmer ME. Hormone–behavior associations in early infancy. Hormones and Behavior. 2009; 56 (5):498–502. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.08.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Alexander GM, Wilcox T, Woods R. Sex differences in infants’ visual interest in toys. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2009; 38 (3):427–433. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9430-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Anastasiow NJ. Success in school and boys’ sex-role patterns. Child Development. 1965; 36 :1053–1066. doi: 10.2307/1126944. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Ashton E. Measures of play behavior: The influence of sex-role stereotyped children’s books. Sex Roles. 1983; 9 (1):43–47. doi: 10.1007/BF00303108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Auster CJ, Mansbach CS. The gender marketing of toys: An analysis of color and type of toy on the Disney store website. Sex Roles. 2012; 67 (7–8):375–388. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0177-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bainbridge, J. (2018, June 5). Beyond pink and blue: The quiet rise of gender-neutral toys. The Conversation . Retrieved from www.theconversation.com .
• *Banerjee R, Lintern V. Boys will be Boys: The effect of social evaluation concerns on gender-typing. Social Development. 2000; 9 (3):397–408. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00133. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barford, V. (2014, January 27). Do children’s toys influence their career choices? BBC News Magazine . Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/magazine .
• *Barkley RA, Ullman DG, Otto L, Brecht JM. The effects of sex typing and sex appropriateness of modeled behavior on children’s imitation. Child Development. 1977; 48 (2):721–725. doi: 10.2307/1128683. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beere CA. Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Benenson JF, Liroff ER, Pascal SJ, Cioppa GD. Propulsion: A behavioural expression of masculinity. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1997; 15 (Pt 1):37–50. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1997.tb00723.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Berenbaum SA, Hines M. Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences. Psychological Science. 1992; 3 (3):203–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00028.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Berenbaum SA, Snyder E. Early hormonal influences on childhood sex-typed activity and playmate preferences: Implications for the development of sexual orientation. Developmental Psychology. 1995; 31 (1):31–42. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.31. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Blakemore JE, LaRue AA, Olejnik AB. Sex-appropriate toy preference and the ability to conceptualize toys as sex-role related. Developmental Psychology. 1979; 15 (3):339–340. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.15.3.339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Boldizar JP. Assessing sex typing and androgyny in children: The Children’s Sex Role Inventory. Developmental Psychology. 1991; 27 (3):505–515. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.3.505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. New York: Wiley; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Bradbard M, Parkman S. Gender differences in preschool children’s toy requests. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1984; 145 (2):283–284. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1984.10532277. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown DG. Sex-role preference in young children. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. 1956; 70 (14):1–19. doi: 10.1037/h0093723. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Caldera YM, Huston AC, O’Brien M. Social interactions and play patterns of parents and toddlers with feminine, masculine, and neutral toys. Child Development. 1989; 60 (1):70–76. doi: 10.2307/1131072. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Campbell A, Shirley L, Heywood C, Crook C. Infants’ visual preference for sex-congruent babies, children, toys and activities: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2000; 18 (4):479–498. doi: 10.1348/026151000165814. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter DB, Patterson CJ. Sex-roles as social conventions: The development of children’s conceptions of sex-role stereotypes. Developmental Psychology. 1982; 18 :812–824. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.18.6.812. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Cherney ID, Dempsey J. Young children’s classification, stereotyping and play behaviour for gender neutral and ambiguous toys. Educational Psychology. 2010; 30 (6):651–669. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2010.498416. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Cherney ID, Kelly-Vance L, Glover KG, Ruane A, Ryalls BO. The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play assessment in children aged 18-47 months. Educational Psychology. 2003; 23 (1):95–106. doi: 10.1080/01443410303222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Corter C, Jamieson N. Infants’ toy preferences and mothers’ predictions. Developmental Psychology. 1977; 13 (4):413–414. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.13.4.413. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *DeLucia LA. The Toy Preference Test: A measure of sex-role identification. Child Development. 1963; 34 (1):107–117. doi: 10.2307/1126831. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Doering RW, Zucker KJ, Bradley SJ, MacIntyre RB. Effects of neutral toys on sex-typed play in children with gender identity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1989; 17 (5):563–574. doi: 10.1007/BF00916514. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Downs AC. Letters to Santa Claus: Elementary school-age children’s sex-typed toy preferences in a natural setting. Sex Roles. 1983; 9 (2):159–163. doi: 10.1007/BF00289620. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56 (2):455–463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal. 1997; 315 (7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Eisenberg N, Tryon K, Cameron E. The relation of preschoolers’ peer interaction to their sex-typed toy choices. Child Development. 1984; 55 (3):1044–1050. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Escudero P, Robbins RA, Johnson SP. Sex-related preferences for real and doll faces versus real and toy objects in young infants and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2013; 116 (2):367–379. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.07.001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Fagot BI, Leinbach MD. The young child’s gender schema: Environmental input, internal organization. Child Development. 1989; 60 (3):663–672. doi: 10.2307/1130731. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Fagot BI, Patterson GR. An in vivo analysis of reinforcing contingencies for sex-role behaviors in the preschool child. Developmental Psychology. 1969; 1 (5):563–568. doi: 10.1037/h0027965. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fagot BI, Rodgers CS, Leinbach MD. Theories of gender socialization. In: Eckes T, Trautner HM, editors. The developmental social psychology of gender. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2000. pp. 65–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Fein G, Johnson D, Kosson N, Stork L, Wasserman L. Sex stereotypes and preferences in the toy choices of 20-month-old boys and girls. Developmental Psychology. 1975; 11 (4):527–528. doi: 10.1037/h0076675. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feingold A. Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist. 1988; 43 :95–103. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.95. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feingold A, Mazzella R. Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science. 1998; 9 (3):190–195. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine C. Neuroscience, gender, and “development to” and “from”: The example of toy preferences. In: Clausen J, Levy N, editors. Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer; 2015. pp. 1737–1755. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Fisher-Thompson D, Burke TA. Experimenter influences and children’s cross-gender behavior. Sex Roles. 1998; 39 (9–10):669–684. doi: 10.1023/A:1018804016650. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Frasher RS, Nurss JR, Brogan DR. Children’s toy preferences revisited: Implications for early childhood education. Child Care Quarterly. 1980; 9 (1):26–31. doi: 10.1007/BF01555034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Freeman, G. (1995). Linking gender-related toy preferences to social structure: Changes in children’s letters to Santa since 1978 . Presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Savannah, GA.
• *Fridell SR, Owen-Anderson A, Johnson LL, Bradley SJ, Zucker KJ. The Playmate and Play Style Preferences Structured Interview: A comparison of children with gender identity disorder and controls. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2006; 35 (6):729–737. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9085-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Goble P, Martin CL, Hanish LD, Fabes RA. Children’s gender-typed activity choices across preschool social contexts. Sex Roles. 2012; 67 (7–8):435–451. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0176-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Goldman JA, Smith J, DuWayne Keller E. Sex-role preference in young children: What are we measuring? Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1982; 141 (1):83–92. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1982.10533459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golombok S, Rust J, Zervoulis K, Croudace T, Golding J, Hines M. Developmental trajectories of sex-typed behavior in boys and girls: A longitudinal general population study of children aged 2.5–8 years. Child Development. 2008; 79 (5):1583–1593. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01207.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Gugula, S. E. (1999). Parenting experience and gender role socialization in toy play situations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON.
• *Guinn, M. A. F. (1984). Gender type toy preferences of Native American, non - Native American preschool children in day care, non - day care settings . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
• Gunderson EA, Ramirez G, Levine SC, Beilock SL. The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles. 2012; 66 (3):153–166. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hassett JM, Siebert ER, Wallen K. Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children. Hormones and Behavior. 2008; 54 (3):359–364. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.03.008. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Henderson BA, Berenbaum SA. Sex-typed play in opposite-sex twins. Developmental Psychobiology. 1997; 31 (2):115–123. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hines M. Gonadal hormone influences on human neurobehavioral development: Outcomes and mechanisms. In: Pfaff D, Yves C, editors. Multiple origins of sex differences in brain: Neuroendocrine functions and their pathologies. Berlin: Springer; 2012. pp. 59–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Idle T, Wood E, Desmarais S. Gender role socialization in toy play situations: Mothers and fathers with their sons and daughters. Sex Roles. 1993; 28 (11/12):679–691. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Jacklin CN, Maccoby EE, Dick AE. Barrier behavior and toy preference: Sex differences (and their absence) in the year-old child. Child Development. 1973; 44 (1):196–200. doi: 10.2307/1127703. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Jadva V, Hines M, Golombok S. Infants’ preferences for toys, colors, and shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2010; 39 (6):1261–1273. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jirout JJ, Newcombe NS. Building blocks for developing spatial skills: Evidence from a large, representative U.S. sample. Psychological Science. 2015; 26 (3):302–310. doi: 10.1177/0956797614563338. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamenetz, A., & Turner, C. (2019). Sparkle unicorns and fart ninjas: What parents can do about gendered toys. NPR Program: Morning Edition . Retrieved from text.npr.org.
• *Karpoe KP, Olney RL. The effect of boys’ or girls’ toys on sex-typed play in preadolescents. Sex Roles. 1983; 9 (4):507–518. doi: 10.1007/BF00289790. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kohlberg L. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In: Maccoby EE, editor. The development of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1966. pp. 82–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kung KTF, Li G, Golding J, Hines M. Preschool gender-typed play behavior at age 35 years predicts physical aggression at age 13 years. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2018; 47 (4):905–914. doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-1005-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Stewart H, Mitchell S. Age differences in young children’s responses to open-ended invitations in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2003; 71 (5):926–934. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.926. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Lamminmäki A, Hines M, Kuiri-Hänninen T, Kilpeläinen L, Dunkel L, Sankilampi U. Testosterone measured in infancy predicts subsequent sex-typed behavior in boys and in girls. Hormones and Behavior. 2012; 61 (4):611–616. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.02.013. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Le Maner-Idrissi G. An internal gender system at 24 months. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 1996; 11 (3):301–312. doi: 10.1007/BF03172942. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li G, Kung KTF, Hines M. Childhood gender-typed behavior and adolescent sexual orientation: A longitudinal population-based study. Developmental Psychology. 2017; 53 (4):764–777. doi: 10.1037/dev0000281. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liben LS, Bigler RS. The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2002; 67 (2):1–147. doi: 10.1111/1540-5834.t01-1-00187. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Applied social research methods series. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Lloyd B, Smith C. The social representation of gender and young children’s play. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1985; 3 (1):65–73. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1985.tb00956.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lobel TE, Menashri J. Relations of conceptions of gender-role transgressions and gender constancy to gender-typed toy preferences. Developmental Psychology. 1993; 29 (1):150–155. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.1.150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby EE. Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist. 1990; 45 (4):513–520. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.513. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Martin CL, Kornienko O, Schaefer DR, Hanish LD, Fabes RA, Goble P. The role of sex of peers and gender-typed activities in young children’s peer affiliative networks: A longitudinal analysis of selection and influence. Child Development. 2013; 84 (3):921–937. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12032. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *McHale SM, Kim J-Y, Whiteman S, Crouter AC. Links between sex-typed time use in middle childhood and gender development in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40 (5):868–881. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.868. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Meyer-Bahlburg HFL, Dolezal C, Baker SW, Carlson AD, Obeid JS, New MI. Prenatal androgenization affects gender-related behavior but not gender identity in 5-12-year-old girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2004; 33 (2):97–104. doi: 10.1023/B:ASEB.0000014324.25718.51. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6 (7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Moller LC, Serbin LA. Antecedents of toddler gender segregation: Cognitive consonance, gender-typed toy preferences and behavioral compatibility. Sex Roles. 1996; 35 (7–8):445–460. doi: 10.1007/BF01544131. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Nelson A. Children’s toy collections in Sweden—A less gender-typed country? Sex Roles. 2005; 52 (1–2):93–102. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1196-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Nordenström A, Servin A, Bohlin G, Larsson A, Wedell A. Sex-typed toy play behavior correlates with the degree of prenatal androgen exposure assessed by CYP21 genotype in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2002; 87 (11):5119–5124. doi: 10.1210/jc.2001-011531. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *O’Brien M, Huston AC. Development of sex-typed play behavior in toddlers. Developmental Psychology. 1985; 21 (5):866–871. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.5.866. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *O’Brien M, Huston AC, Risley TR. Sex-typed play of toddlers in a day care center. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 1983; 4 (1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(83)90054-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oksman, O. (2016, May 28). Are gendered toys harming childhood development? The Guardian Life & Style . Retrieved from www.theguardian.com .
• *Pasterski V, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M. Prenatal hormones and postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Child Development. 2005; 76 (1):264–278. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00843.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Pasterski V, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M. Prenatal hormones and childhood sex segregation: Playmate and play style preferences in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Hormones and Behavior. 2011; 59 (4):549–555. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.02.007. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Peretti PO, Sydney TM. The influence of parental toy choice on child toy preference and sex-role typing. Pediatrics International. 1986; 28 (1):55–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-200X.1986.tb00697.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeiffer JM, Butz RJ. Assessing cultural and ecological variation in ethnobiological research: The importance of gender. Journal of Ethnobiology. 2005; 25 (2):240–278. doi: 10.2993/0278-0771(2005)25[240:ACAEVI]2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Powlishta KK, Serbin LA, Moller LC. The stability of individual differences in gender typing: Implications for understanding gender segregation. Sex Roles. 1993; 29 (11–12):723–737. doi: 10.1007/BF00289214. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Raag T. Influences of social expectations of gender, gender stereotypes, and situational constraints on children’s toy choices. Sex Roles. 1999; 41 (11–12):809–831. doi: 10.1023/A:1018828328713. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Rekers DGA, Yates CE. Sex-typed play in feminoid boys versus normal boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1976; 4 (1):1–8. doi: 10.1007/BF00917600. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Richardson JG, Simpson CH. Children, gender, and social structure: An analysis of the contents of letters to Santa Claus. Child Development. 1982; 53 (2):429–436. doi: 10.2307/1128986. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Robinson CC, Morris JT. The gender-stereotyped nature of Christmas toys received by 36-, 48-, and 60-month-old children: A comparison between nonrequested vs requested toys. Sex Roles. 1986; 15 (1–2):21–32. doi: 10.1007/BF00287529. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Rodgers CS, Fagot BI, Winebarger A. Gender-typed toy play in dizygotic twin pairs: A test of hormone transfer theory. Sex Roles. 1998; 39 (3–4):173–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1018894219859. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer [Computer software] Austin, TX: Author; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Roopnarine JL. Mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors toward the toy play of their infant sons and daughters. Sex Roles. 1986; 14 (1–2):59–68. doi: 10.1007/BF00287848. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roopnarine JL. Cultural variations in beliefs about play, parent-child play, and children’s play: Meaning for childhood development. In: Nathan P, Pellegrini AD, editors. The Oxford handbook of the development of play. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. pp. 19–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Rotsztein, B., & Zelazo, P. R. (2000). The development of sex-typed toy preferences and symbolic play behavior . Presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
• Rudman LA, Glick P. The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Schau CG, Kahn L, Diepold JH, Cherry F. The relationships of parental expectations and preschool children’s verbal sex typing to their sex-typed toy play behavior. Child Development. 1980; 51 (1):266–270. doi: 10.2307/1129620. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Seegmiller BR, Suter B, Dunivant N, Baldemor D. The effects of tester sex on sex-typed responses of preschoolers. Journal of Psychology. 1979; 102 (2):215–224. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1979.9923491. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Serbin LA, Connor JM, Burchardt CJ, Citron CC. Effects of peer presence on sex-typing of children’s play behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1979; 27 (2):303–309. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(79)90050-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Serbin LA, Poulin-Dubois D, Colburne KA, Sen MG, Eichstedt JA. Gender stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2001; 25 (1):7–15. doi: 10.1080/01650250042000078. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Servin A, Bohlin G, Berlin L. Sex differences in 1-, 3-, and 5-year-olds’ toy-choice in a structured play-session. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 1999; 40 (1):43–48. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00096. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Servin A, Nordenström A, Larsson A, Bohlin G. Prenatal androgens and gender-typed behavior: A study of girls with mild and severe forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Developmental Psychology. 2003; 39 (3):440–450. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.440. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shields SA. Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles. 2008; 59 (5):301–311. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Stagnitti K, Rodger S, Clarke J. Determining gender-neutral toys for assessment of preschool children’s imaginative play. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 1997; 44 (3):119–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.1997.tb00764.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweet, E. V. (2013). Boy builders and pink princesses: Gender, toys, and inequality over the twentieth century. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of California, Davis, CA.
• Todd BK, Fischer RA, Di Costa S, Roestorf A, Harbour K, Hardiman P, Barry JA. Sex differences in children’s toy preferences: A systematic review, meta-regression, and meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development. 2018; 27 (2):e2064. doi: 10.1002/icd.2064. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tortorello, M. (2019, March 7). How to raise a child without imposing gender. New York Times . Retrieved from www.nytimes.com .
• *Turner PJ, Gervai J. A multidimensional study of gender typing in preschool children and their parents: Personality, attitudes, preferences, behavior, and cultural differences. Developmental Psychology. 1995; 31 (5):759–772. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.759. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *van de Beek C, van Goozen SHM, Buitelaar JK, Cohenbias-Kettenis PT. Prenatal sex hormones (maternal and amniotic fluid) and gender-related play behavior in 13-month-old infants. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2009; 38 (1):6–15. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9291-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010; 36 (3):1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinraub M, Clemens LP, Sockloff A, Ethridge T, Gracely E, Myers B. The development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: Relationships to gender labeling, gender identity, sex-typed toy preference, and family characteristics. Child Development. 1984; 55 (4):1493–1503. doi: 10.2307/1130019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisgram ES, Fulcher M, Dinella LM. Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children’s toy preferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2014; 35 :401–409. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Wilansky-Traynor P, Lobel TE. Differential effects of an adult observer’s presence on sex-typed play behavior: A comparison between gender-schematic and gender-aschematic preschool children. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2008; 37 (4):548–557. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9342-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Wong, W. I. (2012). Emergence, causes and consequences of sex - typed color and toy preferences: A short - term longitudinal study of toddlers . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
• Wong WI, Hines M. Effects of gender color-coding on toddler’s gender-typical toy play. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2015; 44 :1233–1242. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0400-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong WI, Yeung SP. Early gender differences in spatial and social skills and their relations to play and parental socialization in children from Hong Kong. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2019; 48 :1589–1602. doi: 10.1007/s10508-019-1415-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Wood E, Desmarais S, Gugula S. The impact of parenting experience on gender stereotyped toy play of children. Sex Roles. 2002; 47 (1–2):39–49. doi: 10.1023/A:1020679619728. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood W, Eagly AH. A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin. 2002; 128 (5):699–727. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Zosuls, K. M. (2009). Gender development in African American, Dominican, and Mexican immigrant toddlers: Self socialization in three cultural contexts . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York, NY.
• Zosuls KM, Ruble DN. Gender-typed toy preferences among infants and toddlers. In: Weisgram ES, Dinella LM, editors. Gender typing of children’s toys: How early play experiences impact development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2018. pp. 49–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Zosuls KM, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Shrout PE, Bornstein MH, Greulich FK. The acquisition of gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed play. Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45 (3):688–701. doi: 10.1037/a0014053. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zucker KJ. Sex-typing of children’s toys by college students and fourth-graders. Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology. 1977; 7 :6–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zucker KJ, Torkos H. Assessment of androgyny in children. Annals of Sex Research. 1989; 2 :187–203. doi: 10.1177/107906328900200301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

How toys teach children about gender stereotyping

A boy looks at a toy train he received during an annual gift-giving event. Image:  REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Beatrice Alba

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Gender Inequality is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, gender inequality.

Children are born into a world of pink or blue. A walk down a department store toy aisle demonstrates a clear gender divide: princesses and dolls for the girls, superheroes and vehicles for the boys.

Does this simply reflect the different interests that boys and girls have? Or are toy manufacturers imposing gender stereotypes on children?

Marketing toys as being either “for girls” or “for boys” has attracted criticism from initiatives such as No Gender December advocating for more gender-neutral toy choices. Objectors to this campaign include the then-prime minister, Tony Abbott, who responded by saying :

"Let boys be boys, let girls be girls."

And there is indeed some evidence that boys and girls come into the world with different preferences and interests. For example , newborn girls have been found to have a greater interest in looking at faces, and newborn boys a greater interest in looking at mobiles. As early as infancy, boys show greater physical activity than girls.

Gender differences relating to play are not limited to humans. A study of vervet monkeys found that, compared to females, males spent more time playing with a toy police car and a ball. On the other hand, female vervet monkeys spent more time playing with a doll and a cooking pot. There were no gender differences in the amount of time spent playing with a picture book and a stuffed dog, similar to what we find in humans.

Such research seems to indicate innate differences between girls and boys that influence their preferences for particular types of toys. Toy manufacturers marketing toys towards either girls or boys might simply be responding to these preferences.

The ethics of gendered toy marketing

In a newly published article, Cordelia Fine and Emma Rush argue that gender differences in toy preferences are misrepresented in gendered toy marketing. The authors argue that these gender preferences in toys are presented as being categorically different, while in fact they are more a matter of degree.

Their review of the evidence suggests that preferences for toys among children under three years of age show a large degree of overlap. For instance, the study finding that newborn girls preferred to look at a face and newborn boys preferred to look at a mobile only shows average differences in looking time that are less than 10%.

Furthermore, they argue that the gender labelling of toys influences how much interest girls or boys will show in gender-neutral toys. Thus, gendered toy marketing may actually exaggerate the gap in preferences between girls and boys.

Fine and Rush argue that gendered toy marketing perpetuates beliefs about which interests or activities are appropriate for girls or boys. Toys marketed to girls may reinforce them to focus on their physical appearance, and toys marketed to boys may reinforce an interest in violence. Gender-typing of toys can also have a negative impact if there are lesser educational benefits of toys marketed to one or the other gender.

Whether or not gender differences in toy preferences have any innate basis, reinforcing and magnifying those differences and imposing gender stereotypes on children is problematic. Parents who hold such concerns for their children should not overlook other ways in which gender stereotypes affect their children.

Not just child’s play

Children are quick to absorb norms and expectations. They pick up information about gender roles from sources other than the toys they are encouraged, or discouraged, to play with.

Adults might reinforce gender stereotypes in children through traditional gender norms that are visible to them. Take marriage : typically men make marriage proposals to women through the presentation of an engagement ring. More traditionally, this occurs after he asks permission from the woman’s father. At the wedding ceremony, the father walks the veiled bride down the aisle and hands her over to her husband.

She changes her surname to his, and the children also take his name. The bride, if she chooses, goes from Miss to Mrs.

In fact, the whole wedding is viewed as the woman’s “special day”. It’s her chance to live out her ultimate princess fantasy, for which Disney might have provided some inspiration.

Like toys, these adult customs tell children something about gender. At the very least, they reinforce the existence of distinct gender roles. At worst, they send messages about the unequal status of men and women. They enhance masculine stereotypes of dominance, power and autonomy, and feminine stereotypes of subservience, passivity and dependence. These messages are likely to impact children’s developing notions about gender and status.

The point here is not to place moral condemnation on parents who might inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes through marriage traditions. Toy companies exploiting gender stereotypes for profit is a different ethical problem to any possible harm caused by individuals choosing to follow particular wedding traditions.

But if we are concerned about the reinforcement of gender stereotypes in the toy aisle, we should be concerned about them elsewhere. We need to think more broadly about how we as adults reinforce these stereotypes. Anyone concerned about the impact of gender stereotyping on children should be willing to critically examine their potential impact in any context.

Of course, one could respond to the rejection of marriage traditions by objecting that it’s not a big deal. Wedding traditions are romantic, and who would deny a girl’s dream to be a princess for a day? “Let men be men, let women be women,” as Abbott might say.

Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series here .

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

How focused giving can unlock billions and catapult women’s wealth

Mark Muckerheide

May 21, 2024

Progress for women in the workplace stagnating in four key areas, global study reveals

The care economy is one of humanity's most valuable assets. Here's how we secure its future

This is how AI can empower women and achieve gender equality, according to the founder of Girls Who Code and Moms First

Kate Whiting

May 14, 2024

Here's how rising air pollution threatens millions in the US

5 conditions that highlight the women’s health gap

May 3, 2024

• Environment
• Road to Net Zero
• Art & Design
• Film & TV
• Music & On-stage
• Pop Culture
• Fashion & Beauty
• Home & Garden
• Things to do
• Combat Sports
• Horse Racing
• Beyond the Headlines
• Trending Middle East
• Business Extra
• Culture Bites
• Year of Elections
• Pocketful of Dirhams
• Books of My Life
• Iraq: 20 Years On

The case against gendered toys: stereotypes, narrowed development and curbed creativity

When it comes to choosing toys for your children, you need to look past the pinks and blues to the play value.

Experts agree that children should be exposed to an array of different toys as they grow, with a focus on the 'play value' the toy offers. Yuri Shirota / Unsplash

Last year, Danish toy manufacturer Lego announced it would be working to remove gender bias from its toys. This would include no longer marketing items specifically to girls or boys, but selling products as gender neutral, for whoever wanted to buy them.

The move followed toy manufacturing behemoth Hasbro, makers of My Little Pony, Nerf, Transformers and Play-Doh, who dipped its toes in the non-binary toy waters by expanding its Potato Head brand to include a gender-neutral option.

Lego’s decision was borne out of a report commissioned by the company that investigated how children and parents approach creativity.

The survey of about 7,000 parents and children from seven countries found that gender stereotyping remains high, with 78 per cent of boys and 73 per cent of girls agreeing with the statement: “It’s OK to teach boys to be boys and girls to be girls.”

When it comes to gendered toys, the stats told an interesting story.

While 54 per cent of parents worried that their sons would be made fun of for playing with “girls’ toys”, only 24 per cent of parents of daughters expressed concerns their little girl would be judged for playing with “boys’ toys”.

The results were further evidence of the notion that girls being less valued in society is still being perpetuated.

“Most research on the material culture of childhood has confirmed that toys that reflect strict gender roles have significant impact of children’s personal growth and development,” says Dr Nawar Al-Hassan Golley, professor of literary theory and gender and women’s studies at the American University of Sharjah. “Most gendered boys’ toys encourage more cognitive skills than gendered girls’ toys. In addition, gendered toys can reinforce social expectations regarding gender roles.”

Why are toys gendered?

Toys didn’t used to be gendered. Games such as hula hoops, train sets, spinning tops and rocking horses were historically given to both boys and girls.

What sets past toys apart from their modern-day counterparts is commercialisation.

Historians agree that the mid-1800s proved a turning point in both gendered toys and gendered literature . The shift was subtle at first, with older boys, who would have begun to earn their own money, the first to be targeted as an adolescent consumer group that could be marketed to.

With the growth of the US toy industry in the early part of the 20th century, the gendering of toys became commercially driven, as manufacturers realised there was more money to be made in separating “blue” toys from “pink”.

“It is important to note that both historical and cultural differences regarding gender roles can be seen in the production of toys,” says Dr Golley. “Additionally, the gender roles that shape the production of toys are conceived by the adult manufacturers, rather than by evidence-based research on children’s preferences themselves.”

How do gendered toys affect growth and development?

“Gendering of toys can lead to lack of holistic development by causing a loss of opportunities in childhood,” says Sneha John, clinical child and adolescent psychologist at Camali Clinic: Child and Adult Mental Health. “Since each toy is associated with one or more particular skills, children who grow up in strictly gendered environments are unable to incorporate one half of the necessary skills for personality development.”

John says gendered playthings can narrow the thought process of children, curbing creativity and innovation. "Stereotyped toys would limit the scope of future careers as children may not be allowed to expand their cognitive abilities due to such stereotypes.”

Gendered toys are everywhere, evident in stores with large signs that segregate the sexes, as well as online where you can specifically search for toys by gender and age.

But even if there were no signs in a toy store, you need only look for the colours — the packaging on the girls’ side predominantly pinks and purples, the boys’ darker blues, blacks and greens.

“Gendered toys adhere to a clear gender binary; they usually represent stereotypical masculine characteristics for boys and stereotypical feminine traits for girls,” says Dr Golley. “Boys’ toys, such as trucks, guns and soldiers or superheroes, marketed in dark colours, such as shades of blue, emphasise strength, even aggression, action, and adventure.

"Girls’ toys, such as dolls, ballerinas, princesses and their accessories, such as make-up and jewellery, marketed in soft colours, mainly shades of pink, emphasise softness, caring qualities and certain standards of beauty based on physical attractiveness.

"Over time, boys and girls are very likely to associate these stereotypical qualities with themselves and their roles in life.”

Adventure for boys, nurturing for girls

“Gendered toys are very much the start of us defining who our children are,” says mother-of-three Beth Satterly, who lives in Dubai. “Raising a child should be about finding out who they are and working with that, not trying to make them into something specific. For me, the choosing of toys is the start of all these choices we as parents make that are not necessarily for the good of the child, but more in keeping with our own perception and experiences.”

With play is recognised as a crucial stage in childhood development, a child’s access to an array of toys and play experiences, irrespective of gender, not only helps strengthen their sensory, gross and fine motor skills, but also allows them to learn about the world and their place in it.

Toys marketed to boys are often couched in terms of adventure, action, movement and excitement. They’re also more likely to have an aggression or conflict focus. Whereas toys marketed to girls are usually more sedentary and indoors-based. Pink and passive with an emphasis on appearance — grooming a doll or horse’s hair; creativity — painting and art, or nurturing, such as baby dolls to be taken care of.

“Toys offer our children an opportunity to develop various physical, emotional and social skills,” says Dr Waleed Ahmed, consultant psychiatrist at Priory Wellbeing Centre Abu Dhabi. “Puzzles and blocks like Lego teach spatial skills which is implicated in learning math concepts in the future. Dolls and playhouses may teach cognitive sequencing and language skills. Playing with dolls can also teach empathy, imagination and taking perspective. So, there are ‘harms’ in restricting toy choices to socially constructed and marketing-driven gendered ones.”

How parents can remove stereotypes from the toy box

“Gendered toys send powerful cultural messages about the kind of interests boys and girls should have,” says John. “These limiting gender stereotypes can impact identity development, peer relationships and brain development in both girls and boys.”

While toy manufacturers have attempted some inroads into de-gendering their toys, knee-jerk headlines regarding the “war on childhood” or “brainwashing” of children into denying their gender has made some parents nervous.

“It is hard for parents to swim against the tide and make deliberate choices for their children that do not conform to the pressure of societal expectations for a particular gender,” says Dr Ahmed. “Whether that involves choosing a toy, a themed party or colours of clothes.

"There is what can be described as a ‘social cost’ to the child for such choices made, in the form of being bullied or other well-meaning but negative comments being directed. So, invariably parents play safe and thus unwittingly perpetuate this myth.”

Parents who wish to provide a more genderless approach to play can start by buying toys in neutral colours beyond the omnipresent pinks and blues. Another way is to focus on the play value of the toy, as opposed to who it is ostensibly being marketed at.

“For me, the most important thing, especially if you have more than one child, is to have a generic toy area at home,” says Satterly. “Don’t put the toys you think are specifically for that child in their room. Keep them altogether. Look for toys with play value. Toys that have a range of things that do different things Toys for the imagination. Physical and sensory toys for fine motor skills that focus on development not gender.”

Academic Resources

• Academic Affairs/Provost
• Academic Calendars
• Class Schedule
• Colleges & Majors
• Faculty Senate
• Hornet Bookstore
• University Library

Employee Services

• Accounts Payable/Travel
• CSU Employee Union
• Disbursements
• OneCard Services
• University Staff Assembly
• Workers Compensation

News & Events

• Campus Calendar
• Capital Public Radio
• Newsroom/Media
• Sac State Leader
• Sac State Magazine
• Ticket Office
• University Experts Guide

Human Resources

• Human Resources Home
• Benefits/Retirement
• Form 801: Gifts to Agency
• Office for Equal Opportunity

Safety & Wellness

• Campus Safety
• ENS (Emergency Notification System)
• Environmental Health & Safety
• NoonTime/AfterWork Wellness
• Police Department
• Sexual Violence Awareness Resources
• Sustainability

University Resources

• Campus Dining
• Facilities Management
• Reprographics Services
• Mail Services
• IT Service Desk
• IT System Status
• Procurement Services
• Training Resources/Workshops
• Parking & Transportation (UTAPS)
• Sacramento State Brand Center
• Services for Students with Disabilities
• University Policy Manual

Sacramento State

• My Sac State
• Toggle navigation
• Arts & Letters
• Business Administration
• Continuing Education
• Engineering & Computer Science
• Health & Human Services
• Natural Sciences & Mathematics
• Social Sciences & Interdisciplinary Studies
• Academic Departments
• Student Life
• Undergraduate
• International
• Financial Aid for Future Students
• Make a Gift

Sacramento State News

Sociologist explores how toys fuel stereotypes.

A Sacramento State sociologist believes that clues to the continued dominance of men in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields – and the reason nurturing often comes more easily to women – can be found in the children’s toy department.

“When we wall off the toys that develop spatial skills or are devoted to science and say, ‘These are only for boys,’ and we wall off the toys that develop empathy and verbal skills and say, ‘These are only for girls,’ it severely limits how children develop,” says lecturer Elizabeth Sweet.

“If kids aren’t exposed to the kinds of toys and play that help them develop those skills, they may not be as good at them over time. But even more insidious is that it reinforces the stereotype that boys are good at science and math, and girls are not. It pushes women and girls out of that field, because they think it’s not for them.”

Some toy manufacturers have proposed making STEM toys pink to appeal to girls. “I think that’s the wrong approach,” Sweet says. “I think that plays up the stereotype that girls are so different that they need a special kind of STEM toys.”

Sweet, an expert on gender and diversity in children’s toys, presented her research last spring at a White House conference titled “Breaking Down Gender Stereotypes in Media and Toys So That Our Children Can Explore, Learn, and Dream Without Limits.”

She and other scholars discussed childhood and adolescence in relation to media and toys. Representatives from such toy manufacturers as Lego, Mattel, Disney, and DC Warner talked about what they’re doing to address gender and racial stereotypes.

“Everybody was committed to the idea that something needs to change, recognizing there’s a real problem here,” says Sweet. “There are a lot of gender and racial stereotypes at the core of children’s toys in the media today, and that affects children on a couple of different levels.

“Research shows that different kinds of toys help children to develop different kinds of skills. For instance,” she says, “building blocks are great for building spatial skills. Playing with dolls is really good for developing language skills and nurturing abilities. All of those skills are essential for a fully functioning human.”

Sweet recently was interviewed by the Associated Press for a story about how some toy companies are offering more inclusive playthings for the 2016 holiday season, including dolls with disabilities, female superhero figures, and characters with a range of skin tones. She said: “There’s been some good progress, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Kids need to see themselves in the toys and objects that they interact with.”

Her advice for parents, grandparents, and others shopping for toys this season is first to consider the child’s interests.

“Don’t go first to the idea that this is a girl, so she must want a princess doll,” Sweet says. “Play helps children to develop necessary skills and to learn and grow in their world, so the toys that allow for the most open-ended and creative play are those that research has found are best. And I don’t recommend that parents limit the possibilities.”

Sweet began her research with a stack of Sears catalogs – some found online, others purchased from eBay, and one rescued from her grandparents’ Ohio farmhouse – to see how toys were marketed throughout the 20 th century.

In the early 1900s, before women won the right to vote, toys rarely were identified as being specifically for boys or girls. “At the time when there were huge gender distinctions among adults, there was very little gendering in the advertisements,” she says. “In the quarter- to mid-century, toys become more gendered, and then became less gendered into the 1970s. And then they begin to become more gendered again.”

As a girl growing up in the late 1970s, she played with Star Wars action figures alongside boys. “Granted, all of us girls were some version of Princess Leia, but I don’t remember feeling that Star Wars was a boys’ property.”

And now, as the United States moves closer to achieving gender equality, she says, most toymakers still are headed in the opposite direction.

“When you go into a toy store today, everything is pink and blue, and that is really different from what I remember as a child of the 1970s and ’80s,” she says. “So I was interested to study what, sociologically, has changed over time, and why.” – Dixie Reid

Jeannie Wong , Senior Associate Vice President of University Communications (916) 278-2067 , [email protected]

Brian Blomster , Director of News and Communications (916) 278-3835 , [email protected]

Anita Fitzhugh , Public Information Officer/Senior Writer (916) 278-2806 , [email protected]

Cynthia Hubert , Senior Writer (916) 278-2970 , [email protected]

Dixie Reid , Senior Writer (916) 278-3820 , [email protected]

Sam Churich , Writer/Content Editor (916) 278-2609 , [email protected]

Jonathan Morales , Writer/Content Editor (916) 278-3817 , [email protected]

Ahmed Ortiz , Writer/Content Editor (916) 278-2388 , [email protected]

University Communications Office (916) 278-6156 Sacramento Hall 116

Media Resources

Administration

Public Records Requests

Looking for a faculty expert? Call News Director Brian Blomster at (916) 278-2067 or email [email protected]

Faculty/Staff Resources

Briefing submissions

University Marketing

Brand Center

News Archive

February 2021

January 2021

December 2020

November 2020

October 2020

September 2020

August 2020

February 2020

January 2020

December 2019

November 2019

October 2019

September 2019

August 2019

February 2019

January 2019

December 2018

November 2018

October 2018

September 2018

August 2018

February 2018

January 2018

December 2017

November 2017

October 2017

September 2017

August 2017

February 2017

January 2017

December 2016

November 2016

October 2016

September 2016

August 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

6/2010-5/2015

9/1998-5/2010

Tell Us Your Stories

University Communications shares news and information about the University. We invite you to be our partners in telling the Sac State story. University Communications depends on students, faculty, and staff to alert us about campus events, projects, studies, and accomplishments.

It’s not just the toy aisles that teach children about gender stereotypes

Casual Academic, Deakin University

Disclosure statement

Beatrice Alba does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Deakin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

CHANGING FAMILIES: In this ten-part series , we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.

Children are born into a world of pink or blue. A walk down a department store toy aisle demonstrates a clear gender divide: princesses and dolls for the girls, superheroes and vehicles for the boys.

Does this simply reflect the different interests that boys and girls have? Or are toy manufacturers imposing gender stereotypes on children?

Marketing toys as being either “for girls” or “for boys” has attracted criticism from initiatives such as No Gender December advocating for more gender-neutral toy choices. Objectors to this campaign include the then-prime minister, Tony Abbott, who responded by saying :

Let boys be boys, let girls be girls.

And there is indeed some evidence that boys and girls come into the world with different preferences and interests. For example , newborn girls have been found to have a greater interest in looking at faces, and newborn boys a greater interest in looking at mobiles. As early as infancy, boys show greater physical activity than girls.

Gender differences relating to play are not limited to humans. A study of vervet monkeys found that, compared to females, males spent more time playing with a toy police car and a ball. On the other hand, female vervet monkeys spent more time playing with a doll and a cooking pot. There were no gender differences in the amount of time spent playing with a picture book and a stuffed dog, similar to what we find in humans.

Such research seems to indicate innate differences between girls and boys that influence their preferences for particular types of toys. Toy manufacturers marketing toys towards either girls or boys might simply be responding to these preferences.

The ethics of gendered toy marketing

In a newly published article, Cordelia Fine and Emma Rush argue that gender differences in toy preferences are misrepresented in gendered toy marketing. The authors argue that these gender preferences in toys are presented as being categorically different, while in fact they are more a matter of degree.

Their review of the evidence suggests that preferences for toys among children under three years of age show a large degree of overlap. For instance, the study finding that newborn girls preferred to look at a face and newborn boys preferred to look at a mobile only shows average differences in looking time that are less than 10%.

Furthermore, they argue that the gender labelling of toys influences how much interest girls or boys will show in gender-neutral toys. Thus, gendered toy marketing may actually exaggerate the gap in preferences between girls and boys.

Fine and Rush argue that gendered toy marketing perpetuates beliefs about which interests or activities are appropriate for girls or boys. Toys marketed to girls may reinforce them to focus on their physical appearance, and toys marketed to boys may reinforce an interest in violence. Gender-typing of toys can also have a negative impact if there are lesser educational benefits of toys marketed to one or the other gender.

Whether or not gender differences in toy preferences have any innate basis, reinforcing and magnifying those differences and imposing gender stereotypes on children is problematic. Parents who hold such concerns for their children should not overlook other ways in which gender stereotypes affect their children.

Not just child’s play

Children are quick to absorb norms and expectations. They pick up information about gender roles from sources other than the toys they are encouraged, or discouraged, to play with.

Adults might reinforce gender stereotypes in children through traditional gender norms that are visible to them. Take marriage : typically men make marriage proposals to women through the presentation of an engagement ring. More traditionally, this occurs after he asks permission from the woman’s father. At the wedding ceremony, the father walks the veiled bride down the aisle and hands her over to her husband.

She changes her surname to his, and the children also take his name. The bride, if she chooses, goes from Miss to Mrs.

In fact, the whole wedding is viewed as the woman’s “special day”. It’s her chance to live out her ultimate princess fantasy, for which Disney might have provided some inspiration.

Like toys, these adult customs tell children something about gender. At the very least, they reinforce the existence of distinct gender roles. At worst, they send messages about the unequal status of men and women. They enhance masculine stereotypes of dominance, power and autonomy, and feminine stereotypes of subservience, passivity and dependence. These messages are likely to impact children’s developing notions about gender and status.

The point here is not to place moral condemnation on parents who might inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes through marriage traditions. Toy companies exploiting gender stereotypes for profit is a different ethical problem to any possible harm caused by individuals choosing to follow particular wedding traditions.

But if we are concerned about the reinforcement of gender stereotypes in the toy aisle, we should be concerned about them elsewhere. We need to think more broadly about how we as adults reinforce these stereotypes. Anyone concerned about the impact of gender stereotyping on children should be willing to critically examine their potential impact in any context.

Of course, one could respond to the rejection of marriage traditions by objecting that it’s not a big deal. Wedding traditions are romantic, and who would deny a girl’s dream to be a princess for a day? “Let men be men, let women be women,” as Abbott might say.

Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series here .

• Gender stereotypes
• Gender differences
• Changing families

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 184,100 academics and researchers from 4,967 institutions.

Register now

Dec. 9, 2019

How toys became gendered

Megan Maas , assistant professor of human development and family studies at  Michigan State University , wrote this piece for  The Conversation,  an independent collaboration between editors and academics that provides informed news analysis and commentary to the general public. See the entire  list of articles  written by MSU faculty for The Conversation.

Parents who want to raise their children in a gender-nonconforming way have a new stocking stuffer this year: the gender-neutral doll.

Announced in September, Mattel’s new line of gender-neutral humanoid dolls don’t clearly identify as either a boy or a girl. The dolls come with a variety of wardrobe options and can be dressed in varying lengths of hair and clothing styles.

But can a doll – or the growing list of other gender-neutral toys – really change the way we think about gender?

Mattel says it’s responding to research that shows “kids don’t want their toys dictated by gender norms.” Given the results of a recent study reporting that 24% of U.S. adolescents have a nontraditional sexual orientation or gender identity, such as bisexual or nonbinary, the decision makes business sense.

As a developmental psychologist who researches gender and sexual socialization, I can tell you that it also makes scientific sense. Gender is an identity and is not based on someone’s biological sex. That’s why I believe it’s great news that some dolls will better reflect how children see themselves.

Unfortunately, a doll alone is not going to overturn decades of socialization that have led us to believe that boys wear blue, have short hair and play with trucks; whereas girls like pink, grow their hair long and play with dolls. More to the point, it’s not going to change how boys are taught that masculinity is good and femininity is something less – a view that my research shows is associated with sexual violence.

Pink girls and blue boys

The kinds of toys American children play with tend to adhere to a clear gender binary.

Toys marketed to boys tend to be more aggressive and involve action and excitement. Girl toys, on the other hand, are usually pink and passive, emphasizing beauty and nurturing.

It wasn’t always like this.

Around the turn of the 20th century, toys were rarely marketed to different genders. By the 1940s, manufacturers quickly caught on to the idea that wealthier families would buy an entire new set of clothing, toys and other gadgets if the products were marketed differently for both genders. And so the idea of pink for girls and blue for boys was born.

Today, gendered toy marketing in the U.S. is stark. Walk down any toy aisle and you can clearly see who the audience is. The girl aisle is almost exclusively pink, showcasing mostly Barbie dolls and princesses. The boy aisle is mostly blue and features trucks and superheroes.

Breaking down the binary

The emergence of a gender-neutral doll is a sign of how this binary of boys and girls is beginning to break down – at least when it comes to girls.

A 2017 study showed that more than three-quarters of those surveyed said it was a good thing for parents to encourage young girls to play with toys or do activities “associated with the opposite gender.” The share rises to 80% for women and millennials.

But when it came to boys, support dropped significantly, with 64% overall – and far fewer men – saying it was good to encourage them to do things associated with girls. Those who were older or more conservative were even more likely to think it wasn’t a good idea.

Reading between the lines suggests there’s a view that traits stereotypically associated with men – such as strength, courage and leadership – are good, whereas those tied to femininity – such as vulnerability, emotion and caring – are bad. Thus boys receive the message that wanting to look up to girls is not OK .

And many boys are taught over and over throughout their lives that exhibiting “female traits” is wrong and means they aren’t “real men.” Worse, they’re frequently punished for it – while exhibiting masculine traits like aggression are often rewarded.

How this affects sexual expectations

This gender socialization continues into emerging adulthood and affects men’s romantic and sexual expectations.

For example, a 2015 study I conducted with three co-authors explored how participants felt their gender affected their sexual experiences. Roughly 45% of women said they expected to experience some kind of sexual violence just because they are women; whereas none of the men reported a fear of sexual violence and 35% said their manhood meant they should expect pleasure.

And these findings can be linked back to the kinds of toys we play with. Girls are taught to be passive and strive for beauty by playing with princesses and putting on makeup. Boys are encouraged to be more active or even aggressive with trucks, toys guns and action figures; building, fighting and even dominating are emphasized. A recent analysis of Lego sets demonstrates this dichotomy in what they emphasize for boys – building expertise and skilled professions – compared with girls – caring for others, socializing and being pretty. Thus, girls spend their childhoods practicing how to be pretty and care for another person, while boys practice getting what they want.

This results in a sexual double standard in which men are the powerful actors and women are subordinate. And even in cases of sexual assault, research has shown people will put more blame on a female rape victim if she does something that violates a traditional gender role, such as cheating on her husband – which is more accepted for men than for women.

A 2016 study found that adolescent men who subscribe to traditional masculine gender norms are more likely to engage in dating violence, such as sexual assault, physical or emotional abuse and stalking.

Teaching gender tolerance

Mattel’s gender-neutral dolls offer much-needed variety in kids’ toys, but children – as well as adults – also need to learn more tolerance of how others express gender differently than they do. And boys in particular need support in appreciating and practicing more traditional feminine traits, like communicating emotion or caring for someone else – skills that are required for any healthy relationship.

Gender neutrality represents the absence of gender – not the tolerance of different gender expression. If we emphasize only the former, I believe femininity and the people who express it will remain devalued.

So consider doing something gender-nonconforming with your children’s existing dolls, such as having Barbie win a wrestling championship or giving Ken a tutu. And encourage the boys in your life to play with them too.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

By: Megan Maas

Related life stories

Msu kicks off juneteenth weekend celebrations in east lansing.

• Ask the expert: Disadvantaged neighborhoods and mental health
• Three Spartans prepped for NCAA Singles and Doubles Championships

May 22, 2024

Summer concerts begin at Beal Botanical Gardens

May 21, 2024

Student view: Exploring water insecurity

Msutoday weekly update.

The MSUToday Weekly Update email showcases how Spartans are making a difference through academic excellence, research impact and community outreach. Get inspired by these stories of innovation, collaboration and determination. Plus, enjoy photos and videos of campus and more MSU content to help keep you connected to the Spartan community.

Connect With Us

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

What the Research Says: Gender-Typed Toys

You are here

What makes a good toy for a young child? NAEYC asked two researchers about what their work tells us about toys, children, and play.

Judith Elaine Blakemore is professor of psychology and associate dean of Arts and Sciences for Faculty Development at Indiana University−Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Her primary research interest is the development of gender roles. We also spoke to Jeffrey Trawick-Smith, professor at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic, Connecticut, about  the impact of specific toys on play .  

Tell us about your toy research.

Professor Blakemore : We identified more than 100 toys and classified them to indicate how much each toy was associated with boys, girls, or neither.

In general the toys most associated with boys were related to fighting or aggression (wrestlers, soldiers, guns, etc.), and the toys most associated with girls were related to appearance (Barbie dolls and accessories, ballerina costumes, makeup, jewelry, etc.).

We then divided the toys into six categories, based on these ratings: (1) strongly feminine, (2) moderately feminine, (3) neutral, (5) moderately masculine, and (6) strongly masculine. Toys were then rated according to their characteristics, such as able to be manipulated, exciting, educational, aggressive, musical, etc.

We found that girls’ toys were associated with physical attractiveness, nurturing, and domestic skill, whereas boys’ toys were rated as violent, competitive, exciting, and somewhat dangerous. The toys rated as most likely to be educational and to develop children’s physical, cognitive, artistic, and other skills were typically categorized as neutral or moderately masculine. We concluded that strongly gender-typed toys appear to be less supportive of optimal development than neutral or moderately gender-typed toys.

What message do you think early childhood teachers and other educators could take from your research?

Professor Blakemore : If you want to develop children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills, toys that are not strongly gender-typed are more likely to do this.  

What message about toys do you think families of young children could take from your research?

Professor Blakemore : For parents, it’s the same message as for teachers: Strongly gender-typed toys might encourage attributes that aren’t ones you actually want to foster. For girls, this would include a focus on attractiveness and appearance, perhaps leading to a message that this is the most important thing—to look pretty. For boys, the emphasis on violence and aggression (weapons, fighting, and aggression) might be less than desirable in the long run.

Also, moderately masculine toys have many positive qualities (spatial skills, science, building things, etc.) that parents might want to encourage in both boys and girls. Perhaps, to some extent, it is the same for some moderately feminine toys (nurturance, care for infants, developing skills in cooking and housework).

What's the most surprising thing you think your research tells us about children, toys, and play?

Professor Blakemore : I am not sure how surprising this is to me but it might be to parents: Moderately masculine toys encourage children's physical, cognitive, academic, musical, and artistic skills more so than moderately feminine ones.

Gender Stereotyping of Children's Toys: A Comparison of Parents and Nonparents

• Published: January 1999
• Volume 40 , pages 121–138, ( 1999 )

Cite this article

• C. Estelle Campenni  

5538 Accesses

42 Citations

Explore all metrics

Parents and nonparents were compared to examinedifferences in the use of gender stereotyping toclassify children's toys. Gender-stereotyping was alsoexamined based on the age of the child. Parents and nonparents were sampled from a predominantlywhite, middle and upper middle class population.Subjects rated the appropriateness of 206 toys for useby girls and/or boys and were in general agreementregarding toys identified as gender-stereotyped. Ingeneral, feminine toys were stereotyped more thanmasculine toys although parents were more gender neutralin their ratings of toys than nonparents. Comparisons across mothers and fathers suggest thatinteractions with children may influence parentalperceptions of gender-appropriateness differentially formothers and fathers and is partly dependent on the sex of the child(ren). Finally, it appears thatwhile toys are gender stereotyped for all age groups,there is more flexibility in gender stereotyping of toysfor infants and toddlers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Parents’ Judgments about the Desirability of Toys for Their Children: Associations with Gender Role Attitudes, Gender-typing of Toys, and Demographics

Boys just don’t gender stereotyping and sanctioning of counter-stereotypical behavior in preschoolers, the roles of self-socialization and parent socialization in toddlers’ gender-typed appearance.

Basow, S. A. ( 1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles (3rd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Google Scholar  

Bradbard, M. (1985). Sex differences in adults' gifts and children's toy re quests at Christmas. Psychological Reports, 56, 969-970.

Bradbard, M., & Parkman, S. ( 1984). Ge nder differences in preschool children's toy requests. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 145, 283-284.

Caldera, Y., Huston, A., & O'Brien, M. ( 1989). Social interactions and play patterns of parents and toddlers with fe minine, masculine, and neutral toys. Child Developm ent, 60, 70-76.

Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. ( 1977). Behaviorally base d masculine-and feminine-activity-pre fe re nce scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cogni-tive tests. , 48, 1411-1416.

Eise nberg, N., Murray, E., & Hite, T. ( 1982). Children's re asoning re garding se x-typed toy choices. Child Development, 53, 81-86.

Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S. A., Hernandez, R., & Pasternack, J. F. (1985). Pare ntal socialization of young children's play: A short-term longitudinal study. Child Development, 56, 1506-1513.

Etaugh, C., & Liss, M. B. ( 1992). Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for adult gende r roles. Sex Roles, 26, 129-147.

Fagot ( 1974). Sex differences in toddlers' behavior and parental reaction. Developmental Psy-chology, 10, 554-558.

Fein, G., Johnson, D., Kosson, N., Stork, L., & Wasserman, L. (1975). Sex ste re otypes and pre fe re nce s in the toy choices of 20-month old boys and girls. Developmental Psychology, 1 1, 527-528.

Fisher-Thompson, D. ( 1990). Adult sex-typing of children's toys. Sex Roles, 23, 291-303.

Fisher-Thompson, D. (1993). Adult toy purchases for children: Factors affecting sex-typed toy selection. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 385-406.

Idle, T., Wood, E., & Desmarais, S. (1993). Gender role socialization in toy play situations: Mothers and fathers with their daughters and sons. >Sex Roles, 28, 679-691.

Langolis, J. H., & Downs, A. C. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as socialization agents of sex-typed behavior in young children. Child Development, 5 1, 1217-1247.

Liss, M. B. (1981). Patterns of toy play: An analysis of sex differences. Sex Roles, 7, 1143-1150.

Masters, J. C., & Wilkinson, A. (1976). Consensual and discriminative stereotypy of se x-type judgments by parents and children. Child Developm ent, 4 7, 208-217.

Miller, C. (1987). Qualitative differences among gende r stereotype d toys: Implications for cog-nitive and social development in boys and girls. Sex Roles, 16, 473-487.

Mischel, W. (1966). A social learning vie w of sex differences in behavior. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex difference s. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mischel, W. (1970). Sex typing and socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconce ptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

O'Brien, M., & Huston, A. C. (1985a). Development of sex-typed play in toddlers. Develop-mental Psychology, 21, 866-871.

O'Brien, M., & Huston, A. C. (1985b). Activity level and sex-stereotyped toy choice in toddler boys and girls. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 527-533.

Peretti, P., & Sydne y, T. (1984). Parental toy choice stereotyping and its effects on child toy preference and sex-role typing. Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 213-216.

Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., Malcuit, G., & Cossette, L. (1990). Pink or blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex-Roles, 22, 359-367.

Rheingold, H. L., & Cook, D. V. (1975). The content of boys' and girls' rooms as an index of parents' behavior. Child Development, 46, 459-463.

Robinson, C. C., & Morris, J. T. (1986). The gender-stereotyped nature of Christmas toys re ceive d by 36-, 48-, and 60-month-old children: A comparison between nonreque sted vs. requested toys. Sex Roles, 15, 21-32.

Rubin, J. Z., Provenzano, F. J., & Luria, Z. (1974). The eye of the beholder: Parents' views on sex of the newborn. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 4 4, 512-519.

Serbin & Connor (1979). Sex-typing of children's play preferences and patterns of cognitive performance. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 13 4, 315-316.

Snow, M. E., Jacklin, C. N., & Maccobby, E. E. (1983). Sex-of-child differences in father-child interaction at one ye ar of age. Child Development, 5 4, 227-232.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. ( 1978). Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimen-sions, Correlates, and Antecedent s. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Sweeney, J., & Bradbard, M. R. (1988). Mothers' and fathers' changing perceptions of their male and female infants over the course of pregnancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 14 9, 393-404.

Tauber, M. A. ( 1979). Parental socialization te chniques and sex differences in children's play. Child Development, 50, 225-234.

Tracy, D. M. ( 1987). Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathe matics achie vement: Are they re lated? Sex Roles, 17, 115-138.

Vieira, K. G., & Miller, W. H. ( 1978). Avoidance of sex-atypical toys by five-and te n-year-old children. Psychological Reports, 43, 543-546.

We inraub, M., Clemens, L. P., Sockloff, A., Ethridge, T., Gracely, E., & Myers, B. ( 1984). The developme nt of sex-role stereotypes in the third year: Relationships to gender labeling, gende r identity, se x-typed toy preference, and family characteristics. Child Development, 55, 1493-1503.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Campenni, C.E. Gender Stereotyping of Children's Toys: A Comparison of Parents and Nonparents. Sex Roles 40 , 121–138 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018886518834

Download citation

Issue Date : January 1999

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018886518834

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social Psychology
• Middle Class
• Gender Stereotyping
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Gender Stereotypes In Toys Essay

The development of kids is directly impacted by gender stereotypes in toys. Toys can help children develop certain skills and functions. Play helps kids learn how to solve problems, get along with others, and develop motor skills (“Children”). Toys can help kids develop physical skills, cognitive concepts, language skills, and social skills (“Children”). Gender stereotypes negatively impact a child’s development. By closing the door on kids playing with a variety of toys, we deny them the opportunity to develop a wide variety of skills (“Toys”). During the Imprint Period (0-7 years), gender stereotypes in toys affects kids development. From ages zero to seven, kids soak up everything around them “like a sponge” (“Teenager”). During the Imprint period, the "neural network for how to do things in life is being laid down," and kids develop life skills. During this time everything we see we accept as true, and …show more content…

As gender stereotypes in toys impact a child’s interest, this also influences their career choices. Through playing with toys, kids develop interests (Steinmatz). When kids are only offered half of the toys available, they don’t get the chance to gain interest in the toys declared for the opposite sex. Gender stereotypes limit the variety of toys that kids will form interests and skills upon (Clayton). The skills and interests kids develop during childhood shape what academic and career choices they make as adults (“Toys”). Toys effect on career is proven as stated, “research by retail group Argos found that over sixty percent of adults working in design-led jobs, such as architects and designers, enjoyed playing with building blocks as children. Even more - sixty-six percent - working in maths related roles, such as accountants and bankers, preferred puzzles” (Barford). This is because adults reflect on their skills and interests that they have had since childhood before deciding their career(Clayton). Toys with gender stereotypes limit kids’

Examples Of Bias In To Kill A Mockingbird

Girls and boys toys have created a huge impact in america with the colors, and types of things they use to aim a specific item towards a single gender. In stores such as target the aisles are separated by so called boy colors and girl colors. Also toys are named different things just for an appeal to genders such as dolls and action figures, when they are really all the same thing. This affects our world because it shows that boys and girls have to get or buy certain things aimed

Summary Of Even Nine-Month-Old Choose Gender Specific Toys

In the essay “Even Nine-Month-Olds Choose Gender-Specific Toys,” Jennifer Goodwin acknowledges the possibility of gender being innate, as a research showed that “even 1-day-old boys spent longer looking at moving, mechanical options than 1-day-girls, who spent more time looking at faces” (89). However, she claims that even actions this early in life may already be influenced by the parents’ different treatments, which start almost instantly after their child is born. Goodwin states that, even when their children are still infants, parents tend to show more affection towards girl than boys, who are dealt with in a more active and playful manner, which could explain the findings of the research mentioned. This difference in treatments is later

Stereotypes In Picture Books

There has been a lot of quarrels over the years about how children’s picture books are embracing traditions and presenting gender stereotypes. In an article I found, author Narahara May of “Gender Stereotypes in Children’s Picture Books,” discusses two major problems. One being that gender stereotypes and sexism has an emotional impact on the development of children’s identity and development. Secondly, she explains about how books in the last decade have portrayed gender negatively. Furthermore, I will be discussing May’s ideas further in depth by examining the portrayals of gender stereotypes found in the popular “Berenstain Bears” picture books.

Examples Of Empathy In To Kill A Mockingbird

F. Scott Fitzgerald, a well known classic novelist, once wrote, “Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone… just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve has.”. These powerful words can teach one to care for those around them through differences and similarities. Being empathetic will get a person much farther than being judgemental in this world. Likewise, empathy is also a main lesson in the classic novel To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Set in a small town called Maycomb, Alabama during the 1930s, when stereotypes and judgmental stigmas were at their peaks in the United States, the reader witnesses a heartbreaking trial and death of Tom Robinson.

The Pink And The Blues Analysis

The documentary “The Pinks and the Blues” and the podcast “Can a Child be Raised Free of Gender Stereotypes” discuss the unconscious gender stereotypes and assumptions that our culture places upon children. Children are enculturated with ideas about who they should be, how they should think and behave, and this enculturation has distinct effects upon the child psychology and way of living in the world. The viewer is left with the question: Is it possible to raise a child without gender stereotypes? “The Pinks and the Blues” states that gendered treatment of children begins within 24 hours of the child’s birth. Descriptors for male infants and female infants were different, with boys being labeled as big, strong, and alert while girls were labeled as being delicate, petite, and inattentive.

Pollitt Gender Roles

The essay “Why Boys Don’t Play With Dolls” by Katha Pollitt, is an essay angled at young people who are, or potentially will be parents. The piece begins with an analysis of the indoctrination of gender roles upon children, with the focus beyond societal influences. Pollitt says other people claim that the reasoning behind children’s affinity for specific toys can be traced to things innate in humans, listing “...prenatal hormonal influences, brain chemistry, genes…” (Pollitt 1) as the top offenders. She also includes “...that feminism has reached its natural limits.”

Gender Differences In Walmart's Toys

Their boy toys required a lot more outdoor space. This reinforces Thorne’s (1986) findings that show that boys use ten times the space that girls do at recess. The array of Puzzles, LEGO buildings, and even advent Calendars, encourage creativity, and structure to build their toys, they even have to put the advent calendars together before they can use it. This is reinforcing the act like a man box, because it stresses that boys should show their masculinity by being be able to work with their hands and physically build things themselves as a part of the fun (Kivel, 1984). The toys even encouraged future professions one LEGO Mindcraft game inspires jobs such as, architecture, landscape design, and even farming.

Analysis Of When Kids Play Across Gender Lines By Kamalla Grinberg

She backs this up with a study by Vanessa Lobue and Judy DeLoache in which children age seven months to five years were asked to choose between a pink or blue object and it wasn’t until around two and a half that girls preference for pink became obvious. Robb then includes many quotes from Megan Fulcher, associate professor of psychology at Washington and Lee University. She uses Fulcher’s idea that gender-specific toys marketing leads to hindered learn, such as in motor skills. This article fits into my research paper because it shows that stores should rid of gender-specific marketing because it harms children and it shows that business were able to do it in the

Cinderella Ate My Daughter Chapter Summary

Until age five, children do not form object permanence and therefore assume that identity is something that changes with certain aspects of appearance, such as clothing or hairstyle. Thus, a set of rigid rules about physical appearance are put in place by the child to determine whether a person is male or female. Orenstein discovers that toy choice is also something that is innately different between the sexes. For instance, in an experiment conducted on primates, the male and female monkeys play with the toys that are the most traditional and specific to their gender.

Alice Robb's Argumentative Research

(Alice Robb) America has grown over the years, but we still have a problem with gender stereotypes. The toy industry stereotypes children by peer pressuring them to conform to society. Gendered colors that advertisements and toy stores use affect children in their formative years because what they learn stays with them for their entire lives. According to Jo Paoletti, “girl’s preference for pink is learned, not innate; cognitive research suggests that all babies actually prefer blue.”

Gender Identity Nature Or Nurture

Although some people believe that nature affects the gender identity, others argue that, based on the education an individual receives, it is actually nurture. For example, John Moore, a teacher at a female-only school, says, “My findings suggest that, in some senses, the single-sex school is strongly feminist” (Moore, 2005). On the other hand, many societies teach the children gender stereotypes to try and limit them from becoming against what the society feels is appropriate. Gender roles or stereotypes are “a set of qualities, behaviors, and attitudes that are considered appropriate for males and females based on their biological sex” (Whalen & Maurer-Starks, 2008). Most of the time, these stereotypes are taught and explained to the children in the early stages of learning, since as mentioned above, gender identity is most likely detected after the child is two years old.

Gender Roles In Toy Story

An example of this stereotype of gender roles in Toy Story would be when Sid's sister wears pink clothes and plays with dolls. This is stereotypical of girls because girls are thought of to wear pink and play with dolls from a very young age. Sid, however, wears a shirt with a skull and plays with action figures. Besides that think about what Sid did to the toys he was very rough and even broke some and that is another stereotype of a boy's gender role. The story also teaches that it’s important to respect other people's property, as well as your own!

The Little Mermaid Gender Stereotypes

These studies suggest that children observe gender stereotypes at an early age unintentionally. Since children’s brains are constantly soaking in new information about the world around them, they have to do so in a way that they are seemingly most comfortable. Studies show that children are most comfortable learning from people who are actively in their lives and attractive movie and TV

Gender Stereotypes In Disney Movies Essay

Gender roles have been noticeable in Disney films especially the Disney Princess series. Women are typically portrayed as a princess, homemaker, or queen while men are portrayed as strong, dominant and authority characters. The portrayal of the prince or knights in the movies usually highlighted with the strong and powerful characteristic, whereas the Disney princesses are weak, vulnerable and being protected. According to Tiffany, gender stereotypes and behaviours illustrations are very common in Disney culture and their depictions have become sophisticated over the years especially those of female characters.

Describe Gender Roles In Children

Children and young adults are identifying with gender roles at a young age due to mass media. Children develop within a society that is gender-specific when it comes to social and behavioral norms. These come from the family’s structure, how they play with others and by themselves, and school. Girls were expected to be more passive while boys were to be more aggressive and expressive with masculine behaviors. “Before the age of three, children can differentiate toys typically used by boys or girls and begin to play with children of their own gender in activities identified with that gender.

More about Gender Stereotypes In Toys Essay

How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK Research Paper

Research proposal, statement of methods, research paper, reference list, research questions.

The research topic is “How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK.” The key research question is: Do toys reflect old stereotypes in gender?. The minor research questions include: How do toys represent their subjects in terms of gender?, In what ways are these representations symptomatic of real life?, Do those representations lead to stereotypes in adult life?.

The research methodology implies the use of quantitative methods, particularly cross-sections surveys. For the survey four toys have been chosen – two for boys and two for girls. The surveys contain questions about these toys, their appearances, as well as gender-related questions.

The study premises on the answers of fifteen girls at age 8-11 and fifteen boys at similar age category. The survey is based on questionnaires that were specifically developed for this research. The questionnaires contained predominantly multiple-choice questions, several open-ended questions, and some general questions. The toys represented various functions that are traditionally assigned to women and men in society.

Children’s parents also took in survey to define the degree of gender representation in the toys chosen for the experiment. The toys should be scaled as female oriented (scale from 1-4), gender neutral (5 points), and male oriented (from 6 to 9 points). In this study, 18 couples (9 fathers and 9 mothers) agreed to participate in the research analysis of their choices in buying toys for their children. Children also had to go through interviews were recorded by the research participants. The interviews were conducted in the presence of their parents.

Data collection will involve a three step process in which four toys from Tesco will be selected. Two must account for either of the genders. Thereafter, the researcher will analyze the items on the basis of dominant signs or representations. Certain patterns on gender will be identified from the signs and these will be structured in accordance with semiotic ideas. Finally, the patterns will be related to the research questions and similarities found.

Introduction

The research topic is “How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK.” Scholars have argued that a semiotic relationship exists in toys and this perpetuates gender stereotypes. Girls and boys learn about society’s expectations about their gender from what they interact with, and toys are one such example. Therefore, the key research question is: Do toys reflect old stereotypes in gender? The minor research questions include: How do toys represent their subjects in terms of gender?, In what ways are these representations symptomatic of real life?, Do those representations lead to stereotypes?. The research will employ semiotic content analysis to answer the research questions.

Literature review

Toys are an important semiotic resource in that they illustrate social identities and social roles. Therefore, an analysis of their representation is critical in determining social relationships. This research is particularly interested in gender representations. Leeuwe explains that dolls create certain roles among their users.

They are interactive in nature; consequently, their kinesthetic designs will determine the role that a child will take on when playing with them. For instance, a teddy bear has lots of fur in order to encourage the child to cuddle it. Alternatively, a spider man toy may have provisions for sticking on walls. Therefore, the kinesthetic design of a doll will determine how a child will interact with it. With time, children will learn about societal rules and what they can or cannot do with their toys. [1]

A toy has an identity depending on its physical features. The color of the toy, its anatomical features, the build, its skin color, hair length and other features all form part of a toy’s identity. These features are unique markers of the child’s or manufacturer’s culture. For instance, many dolls in western culture have females with blond hair as a measure of what western culture considers conventional.

Finally, toys carry meaning in their design and representation. The traits in a toy will provide clues about what they symbolize. For instance, some toys may possess huge muscles or large breasts depending on the meaning they want to convey. Sometimes, their physical features may have a comic effect or they may represent society’s expectations about the toy. Toys are, therefore, useful in engaging in a discourse analysis about their social worlds. [2] Their roles, identities and meanings answer pertinent questions concerning society.

Methodology

The study was premised on the results from the surveys designed for children and parents. To begin with, parents should label the selected toys in relation to gender functions they performed.

The scale that was designed for this study ranged from1 to 9 points, where female-related roles were highlighted by points from 1 to 4, gender-neutral toys were labeled as 5 and male-related toys were evaluated from 5 to 9 points. The proposed scales helped to classify the toys in accordance with gender stereotypes and parents’ attitude to them.

The parents sample included 18 couples with 9 fathers and 9 mothers, who were gathered through mass-mailing and phone calls. The information about electronic mail address and phone numbers were taken from the database from the school in which their children studied.

The average age of parents was about 37.3 years. The scale developed for estimating gender appropriateness sought to define how parents understood the functions that the toys could perform in children’s games (See Appendix 2). The toys were designed for children under the age from 8 to 11.

There were 30 children (15 boys and 15 girls) who also participated in the study who should define the roles and function that each toy could perform during the play. The cross-sectional survey implied interviewing each child individually to achieve the accuracy and objectivity of results.

Both parents and children were presented to four toys. Two toys – Baby Annabel Function Doll and Barbie Doggie Water Park – were designed for girls whereas Bob The Builder Construction Tower and Transformers 3 Ultimate Optimus Prime were selected for boys.

Apart from the gender stereotype scale, parents will be presented with the appropriateness scale that can allow them to determine whether these toys are relevant for children to play. This survey relied on the study Campenni who applied to several characteristics, including appropriateness of toys for girls and for boys in terms of the roles and functions they perform [3] .

Before parents and children were chosen for survey analysis, parents were informed about the purpose and scope of research and were proposed to participate in the research studies. The explanation was also provided to parent’s children who were interviewed in the presence of their parents.

The questionnaire developed for children aims to learn the way they perceived and understood gender roles and functions each toy performs. The questions were composed of open-ended and general type, which contributed to the credibility and validity of the study. The results of the study were processed to define the main attributes that children assigned to these toys.

The study utilized semiotic principles in order to identify connotations of gender in four types of toys. The researcher selected the toys on the basis of their popularity in Tesco retail chains. For girls’ toys, the two items were “Baby Annabel Function Doll” and “Barbie Doggie Water Park”. For boys the two items were “Bob The Builder Construction Tower” and “Transformers 3 Ultimate Optimus Prime” [4] . Both genders had a singular toy and a set.

Children defined some of the physical attributes of the toys. “Baby Annabell Function Doll” is a likeness of a baby in that it that it has the size and physical features of a baby. The doll’s mouth allows one to insert a pacifier or a feeding bottle. Additionally, the doll is battery-powered, so it makes noises similar to that of a real baby when it wakes up.

This works whenever the doll opens its eyes after closing them. Some parts of the doll are made of soft material especially on the torso while the hands, and head are plastic. The doll wears colorful material and clothes that are similar to those of a real child. The colors of choice are white and pink.

Conversely, “Barbie Doggie Water Park” is a collection of a Barbie doll walking her dog at a park. The set has three puppies, a picnic basket and blanket, bones, a dog, a handbag for Barbie a well as some scenes from the park. Barbie looks straight at the buyer and firmly holds the dog’s string as she moves along.

She is wearing a colorful pink and purple blouse and a short orange skirt. The doll also has roller skates and knee pads to protect her in case she falls. Barbie also has long blond hair, and blue eyes. Children can comb her hair with a comb from her bag.

Bob the Builder Construction Tower is a series of parts that allow children to create a water tower. The parts consist of a series of staircases, walls, pulleys, wheelbarrows and floors. The child is supposed to use a pictorial depiction of the completed tower to create the whole item. It is made up of bold colors like yellow and red.

Transformers 3 Ultimate Optimus Prime is a black and red robot from the Transformers series. ‘Transformers’ is a successful film trilogy that many boys love and enjoy. Children have the option of reassembling the robot into a vehicle so they can decide how to play with it. The toy makes missile and battle sounds. It also has flowing weapons that are intended on scaring away enemies. The transformer looks like an alien owing to its weird antennas, wing-like creatures and its numerous extensions.

Data Analysis

Baby Annabel Function Doll represents women as nurturers. A baby naturally requires nurturing; therefore, if a manufacturer is selling such a toy, then he or she intends on perpetuating that stereotype. Considerable interactions with such types of dolls will prepare children for their future roles as mothers. [5]

Unlike Transformer 3, Baby Annabel cannot be deconstructed. The child playing with this doll cannot exercise her duty as a creator. Instead, she must accept that she is a consumer.

Annabel’s set comes with a series of pacifiers, baby bottles and other items. Such a depiction has an adverse implication on what society expects from women as adults. Most manufacturers make their products for women. Cosmetics, household items, and clothes are largely intended for the female consumer. Therefore, this doll is preparing the girl for her role as a consumer in adult life.

Conversely, Transformers 3 is a stand-alone toy. It does not come with several other items like pacifiers. Instead, the toy repeats certain noises that mirror the battlefield. Nothing about the toy signifies care; the boy who plays can take on the role of an action figure in a battle. He has the capacity to defeat his enemies and become a winner.

The toy reflects an outgoing person who does not have to confine himself to domestic situations. This is reflective of what society expects from boys as they grow older. Additionally, the movements of the toys indicate that the child can explore and learn about new things. [6]

Bob the Builder Construction Tower allows the child to pretend to be an engineer or architect. The fact that it is called ‘Bob’ indicates that it is meant for boys. Clearly, the construction site is a very versatile place for the boy to aspire. The toy proves that manufacturers are offering boys more options than girls. They can think about their future professions and relate to them. Bob the Builder is conditioning boys to become direct participants in the economy when they become older.

On the flipside, Barbie Doggie Water Park has no such professional roles. Barbie is walking her dog on roller skates. Her physical attributes accentuate her femininity; such as a curvy body and long legs. One cannot help but notice her physical attractiveness.

The fact that the manufacturers placed a comb in her bag indicates that Barbie must be preoccupied with her appearance. Such a factor will condition Barbie to become conscious about her looks. In the future, it is likely that she will seek approval from others because of this preoccupation with physical attributes. [7]

Boys have more options than girls in the world of toys. This conditions them for their future adult roles in which the same distinctions exist. The kinesthetic design of the toys is a sign that signifies power relations among the gender. Annabel the doll is seated while Transformer 3 is standing with its legs part. Additionally Barbie is preoccupied with her appearance while Bob the Builder is not even on the set. These positions indicate that girls must care about appeasing others. The stand-alone nature of Transformer 3 shows that boys should be independent. It is standing with its legs apart to demonstrate confidence. [8] These are all qualities that society expects from men in adulthood. Additionally, the baby who is seating down has less control than the Transformer 3 who is ready for attack. Power relations of control in the male gender are evident through this kinesthetic design. Boys can change the transformer into a car or they can construct “Bob the Builder’ into something tangible. A lot of rigidity is present in girl’s toys as they can barely move their toys. Girls thus learn that exploration is not a welcome trait. In adult life, it is not surprising that many of them will seek assistance when performing physical tasks like changing tires. Such toys stifle their creative tendencies. [9]

The identity of the toys also has a lot to show about what society expects from women. The aesthetics of the toys are symptomatic of gender stereotypes. Baby Annabel is dressed in pink and white. It has big eyes and chubby cheeks designed to elicit nurturing and caring reactions. Conversely, Transformers 3 or Bob the builder have daring and bold colors designed to encourage the child to do something with it. Girls toys tend to cause them to become more relational while boys toys emphasize practical aspects of things or aggression.

The four research items have proved that contemporary toys still enforce gender stereotypes. Girls’ toys teach them how to become consumers, submissive nurturers and affirmation seekers. On the other hand, boys’ toys condition them for independence, assertiveness, confidence and production in their adult life.

Blakemore, Judith & Renee Centers. “Characteristics of boys’ and girls’ toys.” Sex Roles Journal 53, no. 9(2005): 619-634.

Bell, Susan. “How to use semiotics in qualitative research.” Susan Bell Research . Web.

Campenni, C. Estelle. 1999. “Gender Stereotyping of Children’s Toys: A Comparison of Parents and Nonparents.” Sex Roles 40, no. 1/2: 121-138.

Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics . London: Routledge, 2002.

Cherney, Ian, Linda Kelly-Vance & Kate Glover. “The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play assessment in children aged 18–47 months.” Educational Psychology no. 23(2003), 95–105.

Keramyda, Maria. “Social and ideological Stereotypes in Children’s toy advertisements in Greek Television.” Applied Semiotics no. 22(2009): 203-225.

Squidoo. “Tesco Top 10 Toys for Christmas 2012.” Squidoo . Web.

Stengling, Maya. “Binding: a resource for exploring interpersonal meaning in 3D space.” Social Semiotics 18, no. 4(2008): 425-447.

Van Leeuwen, Theo. “The world according to Playmobil.” Semiotica Journal 173, no. 1(2009): 299-315

Van Leeuwen, Theo & C. Caldas-Coulthard. The semiotics of kinetic design . Wales: Cardiff University Press, 2002.

Wood, Wendy & A. Eagly. “A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.” Psychological Bulletin no. 128 (2002), 699–727.

Appendix 1: Toys Images

Appendix 2: Survey Questionnaire

• Which roles do you assign to the proposed toys:
• Female-related roles;
• Gender roles;
• Male-related;
• Which factors influence your decision to buy a toy?
• To entertain a child;
• To develop his mental and physical skills;
• Do you buy toys to develop gender roles among your children?
• Why do you prefer buying role-related toys?
• For developing gender roles;
• For engaging them into a game;

Appendix 3: Survey Results

Figure 1: Gender Appropriateness

Appendix 4: Survey Questions (for children)

• How do you describe your toy?
• Interesting;
• Which of the toys do you like most?
• Superheroes;
• Do you like your toy?
• What games can you play using this toy?
• Assigning various roles to toys;
• Entertaining each other;
• What role do you perform in game with this toy?
• Active player;
• Passive player;
• Do you want to play with children with the same toy or you prefer playing alone?
• Play with children;
• Playing alone;
• Theo Van Leeuwen, “The world according to Playmobil,” Semiotica Journal 173, no. 1(2009): 299-315
• Maria Keramyda, “Social and ideological Stereoptypes in Children’s toy advertisements in Greek Television,” Applied Semiotics no. 22(2009): 203-225.
• Estelle C. Campenni,. “Gender Stereotyping of Children’s Toys: A Comparison of Parents and Nonparents.” Sex Roles 40, no. 1, (1999): 133.
• Squidoo, “Tesco Top 10 Toys for Christmas 2012,” Squidoo , Last modified January 2013.
• Wendy Wood & A Eagly, “A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences,” Psychological Bulletin no. 128 (2002), 699–727.
• Judith Blakemore, & Renee Centers, “Characteristics of boys’ and girls’ toys,” Sex Roles Journal 53, no. 9(2005): 619-634
• Ian Cherney, Linda Kelly-Vance & Kate Glover, “The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play assessment in children aged 18–47 months,” Educational Psychology no. 23(2003), 95–105.
• Maya Stengling, “Binding: a resource for exploring interpersonal meaning in 3D space,” Social Semiotics 18, no. 4(2008): 425-447.
• Theo Van Leeuwen & C Caldas-Coulthard, The semiotics of kinetic design (Wales: Cardiff University Press, 2002), 41-53.
• "Annabel Lee" by Edgar Allan Poe: Poetry Analysis
• Electrical Assignment - Economic Operation of Propulsion Transformer
• The Transformers Franchise by Michael Bay
• Gender: Determining the Roles in Society
• Arab Women in Media
• Gender Studies: Advertisement and Gender
• Gender Role Development and Friendship
• Gender minority in U.S.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-contemporary-toys-enforce-gender-stereotypes-in-the-uk/

"How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/how-contemporary-toys-enforce-gender-stereotypes-in-the-uk/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-contemporary-toys-enforce-gender-stereotypes-in-the-uk/.

1. IvyPanda . "How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-contemporary-toys-enforce-gender-stereotypes-in-the-uk/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "How contemporary toys enforce gender stereotypes in the UK." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/how-contemporary-toys-enforce-gender-stereotypes-in-the-uk/.

Essay on Gender Stereotype: Gender in The Toy Store

• 11 Works Cited

Envision yourself entering a toy department and noticing numerous diverse aisles. In one aisle, you encounter toys packaged in complementary and color triads colors that include building sets (such as “LEGO”, “LEGO Super Heroes”, and “Angry Birds”) and a wide selection of action figures—Spider Man, Transformers, The Dark Knight, Power Rangers, etc. In the next aisle, adjacent to the aisle with complementary and color triads colors, you find toys packaged in shades of pink and purple. These toys range from “Hello Kitty” dolls to “Barbie Dream” house play sets. Inside a toy department, such as Toys R Us, it is extremely difficult to retrieve a toy that is not marketed explicitly or subtly by gender . If toys were marketed only according to …show more content…

This brings light to what author Santrock discusses in the book as gender roles, which is “a set of expectations that prescribes how females and males should think, act, and feel” (p.163). In the world of toy marketing, choices are made with direction put in place for both genders (girl and boy). For example, as I walked down each toy aisle, I felt the gender conformity among the parents as they were with their children. With multiple aisles and two dominant colors (pink and purple) designated for girls, the message (in my perspective) marketed on the toy package yelled: “Your ambition is to be stylish, while a nurturing mother who partakes in domestic works!” In addition to the toy packages being in pink, the words (on the toy) were predominately frivolous and amusing. On the contrary, the boys’ aisle contained wide varieties of colors, although the color blue caught my eye the most. The boys’ toys entailed sports, building sets, as well as action figures. Conversely, the message in my perspective, marketed on the toy package screamed: “You have the power to do whatever you want; however, it is imperative that you build yourself physically, as well as train yourself in order to properly excel.” This type of act, referred to as the social role theory—“a gender difference that mainly results from the contrasting roles of females and males” (p.165),—gives a great cause of difference in gender regarding power, nurture, and

Gender Socialization Paper

Gender roles are categories that characterize what it means to be feminine and masculine in society, on how people think about gender as they relate to one another (Adams et al., 2013). For example, women are expected to be accommodating and emotional, while men are usually expected to be self-confident and aggressive, this shows how men and women are to behave in society. However, these sayings were taught to individuals based on norms, or standards created by a society which is called Gender Socialization (p. 318). Growing up as a child, we were taught as girls to play with dollhouses, pretend kitchen sets, cleaning supplies and play dress up. Whereas boys are taught to play with cars, sports equipment’s, action figures, and weapons. However, if a boy was playing with dollhouses, or playing dress up, he would be considered gay, or not masculine and looked down upon by society, and families. The same goes for girls who play with boy toys, or dresses as a tomboy, this is what we are taught to play with at a young age. Our families tell us how to behave, our schools tell us what

Toy Evaluation Paper

Further, certain toys seem to suggest that boys are valued higher in society than girls (Starr, 1999). The information appears to show that there may be more stereotyping with regard to toys offered to boys. It seems that most parents choose more masculine and gender-neutral toys for the boys such as, soldier action figures, wrestling kits, and karate fighters (Starr, 1999). These types of toys encourage competitive and aggressive behaviors, however; they are also more constructive, conductive to handling, and more reality based (Starr, 1999).

Target Gender Socialization

Children’s perceptions of how girls and boys have to act can be manipulated by their surroundings. Target and other toy stores teach boys that they have to like fast cars, jobs requiring manual labor, and sports. There was certainly a type of “manliness” portrayed at boys from the toys. Its almost as if they were influencing them to be aggressive and unkind. The toys are teaching girls that they need to enjoy playing house and that the ideal female role is to be a homemaker who takes care of the kids. Many people may think that it is ok for boys and girls to like different things, which it is. But, it is important to recognize that preferences don’t emerge out of each child’s unique personality but that they are shaped by nonstop pressures of different socializing influences. children are given roles of subservience or dominance before they can understand the words. Target is an example of how society is manufacturing products that ultimately encourage inequalities and gender

Essay on Gender Roles and Their Effect on Women

• 6 Works Cited

Throughout the history of society, women and men both have faced the constricting roles forced upon them, from a young age; each gender is given specific social and cultural roles to play out throughout their lives. Little girls are given dolls and kitchen toys, little boys are given dinosaurs and power tool toys, if one was to step out of this specified role, social conflict would ensue. Contrast to popular belief, sex is a biological construct, and gender is a social construct specifying the roles men and women are to follow to be accepted into society as “normal”. The effects of gender roles have had on women have proved harmful over the decades. Although the woman’s involvement in society has improved throughout the decades,

Toys And Its Impact On Children And Their Performance Of Traditional Gender Roles

Toys play an important role in childhood development as children learn roles and skills from playing. As a result, the toys children are subjected to have an affect on which roles, interests, and skills are learned and practiced. Through Lego’s product Duplo, I will demonstrate the influence particular gendered toys have on children and their performance of traditional gender roles. Gender, which is a learned performance, is something society has been taught from a very early age and toy advertising has played a significant role in reinforcing the performance. One tradition that is reinforced and naturalized by society is the ideology of a male dominated society, representing strong characteristics of heterosexuality and masculinity; also known as hegemonic masculinity. Therefore, using Ideological Criticism, I will analyze how through the branding and design of Lego’s Duplo toys, children have been constructed to do gender differently, ultimately perpetuating and reinforcing hegemonic masculinity.

You May Ask Yourself, By Sociologist Dalton Conley

Sociologist Dalton Conley wrote his book, You May Ask Yourself, addressing how “gender is a social construction” that is so normal for society to think how a man or woman should act towards the public. Society often categorizes roles that females and males are suppose to play in, but not only are they categorized they are also being taught what their gender role is suppose to do. The beginning of gender socialization can start with a child who is not born yet by simply having the parents purchase items that are all pink if its expected to be a girl, but if its expected to be a boy then everything they purchase will be blue. Conley states that gender roles are “sets of behavioral norms assumed to accompany ones’ status as male or female” (Conley [2008] 2013:134). So even when a child is growing into their infant years, toys are made specifically for their gender. By examining how social construction places gender in categories it becomes apparent that males and females get differentiated a lot which emphasizes inequality between them.

Essay about Gender Stereotypes Among Children's Toys

When you walk into the toy section of any store, you do not need a sign to indicate which section is the girls’ side and which section is the boys’ side. Aside from all the pink, purple, and other pastel colors that fill the shelves on the girls’ side, the glitter sticks out a lot as well. The boys’ toys however are mostly dark colors – blue, black, red, gray, or dark green. The colors typically used on either side are very stereotypical in themselves.

Do Toy Manufacturers Have A Responsibility For End Gender Stereotypes For Children?

According to cook and Cusack (2010), Gender stereotypes are concerned with social and cultural construction of man and women, due to their physical, biological, sexual and social functions, structured set of beliefs about the personal attributes of man and women. Childhood is a fundamental and significant period in forming an impression of an individual boy or girl, and man or women finally. Subsequent researchers Ania and Cameron(2011) hold an accordant opinion with Cook and Cusack(2010) that gender stereotyping is problematic only when it operates to ignore personal characteristics, abilities, needs, wishes, and circumstances (Cook & Cusack, 2010). In fact, during children’s learning process of gender stereotypes, most of them are under gigantic pressure of the society they belong to and formed a problematic view through normally ignored. One obvious phenomenon is about the toys. Toys are designed and retailed separately for boys and girls with different colours, styles and functions by toy manufacturers. When acquiring a toy, gender will normally be the first issue to consider instead of children’s inherent preferences. It will highly possible to limit children’s personal experiences and future development for both gender groups (Martin, Eisenbud & Rose, 1995). This article will analyse the role of toy manufacturers in gender development in order to decide whether they are responsible to

Gender Socialization Among Children Essay

Toys also influenced children with gender roles. In our society, the typical expectations of men is to financial support the family, and for females it’s to cook, clean, and take care of the children. “Both wives and husbands tend to perceive this as a “fair” arrangement” (Zimmerman 30). To instill this idea in young minds, there are toys that influence these gender roles. Boys have toy tool sets, promoting hands on work. Girls on the other hand have cooking and cleaning toys such as the Easy Bake Oven or toy vacuums. Also “parents tend to encourage more gender-typed activities. One study found that household tasks differ along gender lines. American boys are more likely to mow the lawn, shovel snow, take our the garbage, and do the yard work, whereas girls tended to clean the house, wash dishes, cook, and baby-sit the younger children” (Newman 133). Girls also like to play “house” fostering wife and motherly qualities such as taking care of the family. These toys help with socialization making children believe and understand that these are the norms of our society. So in conclusion to toys, “Sex-specific toys foster different traits and skills in children and thereby serve to further segregate the two sexes into different patterns of social development. “Boys’ toys” encourage invention, exploration,

Essay on Gender Stereotypes and Toys

• 1 Works Cited

Often when a couple becomes pregnant and finds out the sex of the infant, stereotypes begin to form. If the child is female, their room will often be painted pink with cutesy borders. The crib will have pink blankets with ruffles on them. The baby girl will be presented with soft toys and cute stuffed animals, as well as perhaps a baby doll or two. At the baby shower, the mother will typically be presented with pink and purple clothing, the colors of choice for a female child. When the baby finally comes along, she will typically be treated as a gentle princess. When it comes to girls, adults are often more careful, as if the baby girl will break.

The Basic Myth Of Our Culture Is That Consumption Is The Goal Of Life

Advertisements sell the masses the idea of what it means to be male or female and what is the expected behaviour of a particular gender (Cortese 57). An example of this is seen in how toy companies market products for boys and girls differently (Cortese 57). Action- oriented toys are marketed to boys while passive toys are directed towards the direction of girls (Cortese 57).

Walmart Observation

The boys’ aisle proved that society views men as a muscular, heroic-like figures. Take the superhero figurines. Superheroes are the ideal role-model for little boys, but why? This is because superheroes are valiant, strong, brave men. They generally have the same body type (broad shoulder and muscular). These men also exhibit traits, such as courage, charity, and kindness that makes them a wonderful role-model for little boys. What makes the girls’ role in society to be seen as a nurturing mother-like figure? In the girls aisle you will find a variety of baby dolls, kitchen sets, and a bit of doctor tools. This suggests to young girls that their role in society is to play the role of housewife or doctor. The physical attributes of the dolls, such as the Monster High or Lego Friends dolls, reveals that society deems that women should have a tall, slim figure with plump lips and delicate

Women 's Influence On Society Essay

In today’s society, there is often a misconception among women and men and the roles they are expected to follow through with. Although there has been advances in the way women are treated, it is unfortunately still an unbalanced dynamic in our society. From an early age, women are often persuaded, even if subconsciously, to follow a certain pathway in life. They are most often associated with staying home, keeping the house clean, cooking, baking, and raising children. Certain mediums that girls are exposed to tend to sway them towards these specific wants and aspirations. The way in which certain products are presented to little girls create an image they feel like they need to master. Men, on the other hand, are taught something completely different. They are regularly habituated with more masculine and self-reliant tasks. From an early age, they are automatically seen as people that deserve to be educated and use their smart, resourceful assets to contribute to society. They are without a doubt going to get a job and become a father and husband that provides for his family. In most situations, even if the woman has a job, men are the main “bread-winner.” Going along with this belief, the products boys are often marketed portray the idea of strength and independence. Whether it is a toy or a book, men are more often than not characterized as the heroic, more capable gender. There are many cases in which different mediums exhibit the ideas of men being the superior

Gender, Gender And Gender Roles

Gender socialization often begins early once parents are shown the sex of their child; from then on, baby showers are planned according to gender “appropriate” colors, which are often pink for girls and blue for boys. Even differences in how children are spoke to can be picked up easily in Western cultures. Girls are called pretty and sweet, whereas boys are handsome and strong. Ultimately, the way children learn to identify with their gender culture is in part due to not only family and friends, media, schools, and religion, but also from the toys that may inexplicitly advertise gender expectations. Gender-typed toys may be bought for children as a way for parents to encourage and reinforce gender-appropriate behaviors. However, recent debates have engulfed toy manufacturers and major retailers, which has brought about changes in toy design and marketing in an effort to make reflect more realistic and gender neutral options.

Boy Toys Reinforce Gender Stereotypes

Products advertised to children are typically separated by gender. Certain toys and costumes belong to boys and others belong to girls. The gendering of children’s products reinforces stereotypes and affects the life trajectory of many children (Brasted 2010).

Related Topics

• Gender role

The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact

This essay about the intricate layers of sexism, highlighting its pervasive nature and impact on individuals across gender spectrums. It explores how sexism manifests through stereotypes, discrimination, and power imbalances, affecting various aspects of society. The essay emphasizes the importance of recognizing intersectionality and challenging ingrained biases to foster a more equitable future. Through education, advocacy, and inclusive practices, society can work towards dismantling systemic barriers and promoting gender equality for all individuals.

How it works

Sexism, a multifaceted social phenomenon, permeates various facets of human interaction, often unnoticed or downplayed. At its core, sexism entails prejudice, discrimination, or stereotyping based on one’s gender. While commonly associated with the oppression of women, sexism affects individuals across the gender spectrum, albeit in differing ways. Understanding its nuances is paramount to fostering a more equitable society.

Central to sexism is the perpetuation of gender stereotypes, manifesting in beliefs about the inherent capabilities, roles, and characteristics of individuals based on their gender.

This pervasive stereotyping not only influences societal perceptions but also seeps into institutional structures, shaping policies, and practices. For instance, the persistent underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in corporate settings reflects ingrained biases that hinder their advancement.

Moreover, sexism operates on both explicit and implicit levels, with overt acts of discrimination coexisting alongside subtler forms of bias. While blatant instances, such as unequal pay or harassment in the workplace, are more readily identifiable, implicit biases subtly influence decision-making processes, perpetuating systemic inequalities. These biases often go unnoticed, underscoring the need for introspection and education to combat ingrained prejudices.

Intersectionality further complicates the landscape of sexism, highlighting how individuals experience discrimination based on the intersection of their gender identity with other social categories such as race, class, sexuality, and ability. Women of color, for example, may face compounded forms of discrimination, experiencing racism and sexism simultaneously. Recognizing these intersecting identities is crucial for addressing the diverse experiences of marginalization within the broader framework of sexism.

Moreover, the perpetuation of gender norms and expectations perpetuates harmful dynamics that restrict individuals’ autonomy and agency. From childhood, societal norms dictate rigid gender roles, prescribing certain behaviors and interests based on one’s assigned gender at birth. This socialization process not only limits personal expression but also reinforces harmful power dynamics, perpetuating inequalities between genders.

Addressing sexism necessitates a multifaceted approach encompassing societal, institutional, and individual levels of intervention. Education plays a pivotal role in challenging stereotypes, fostering empathy, and promoting gender equality from an early age. Additionally, advocating for inclusive policies and practices within institutions can help dismantle systemic barriers to equality, ensuring fair treatment and opportunities for all individuals.

In conclusion, sexism is a complex social phenomenon rooted in gender stereotypes, discrimination, and power imbalances. Recognizing its multifaceted nature is essential for devising effective strategies to combat it. By challenging ingrained biases, fostering inclusivity, and promoting gender equality, society can work towards creating a more equitable future for all.

Cite this page

The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-layers-of-sexism-understanding-its-complexity-and-impact/

"The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-layers-of-sexism-understanding-its-complexity-and-impact/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-layers-of-sexism-understanding-its-complexity-and-impact/ [Accessed: 24 May. 2024]

"The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 24, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-layers-of-sexism-understanding-its-complexity-and-impact/

"The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-layers-of-sexism-understanding-its-complexity-and-impact/. [Accessed: 24-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Layers of Sexism: Understanding its Complexity and Impact . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-layers-of-sexism-understanding-its-complexity-and-impact/ [Accessed: 24-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers