Sex Roles

, Volume 79, Issue 5–6, pp 273–284 | Cite as

Building a Pink Dinosaur: the Effects of Gendered Construction Toys on Girls’ and Boys’ Play

  • Megan FulcherEmail author
  • Amy Roberson Hayes
Original Article


Play with building toys such as LEGO® sets promotes spatial learning in children. The present study examined the effects of the color of the bricks (either pink or blue) and the femininity/masculinity of the object built on boys’ and girls’ play with LEGO® sets. Children (n = 116, M age  = 7.27 range = 5–10) were given the opportunity to build with LEGO® brick sets, both instructed and free play tasks. For the instructed task, the type of object (feminine: cat; masculine: dinosaur) and color of the bricks (pink, blue) were counterbalanced across participants. Their play was coded for accuracy of following the instructions and time to complete the task. In the free play task, brick color (pink, blue) was counterbalanced across participants, and structures were coded for femininity/masculinity and the number of bricks used. Overall, children took longer to build a feminine object with blue bricks than with pink bricks. In the free-play task, boys built more masculine objects than girls did, regardless of the color of bricks they were given. Results showed that boys completed the LEGO® tasks faster than did girls, controlling for interest in and experience with LEGO® play. These findings suggest that toy color and type can impact how children interact and play with toys.


Construction play Gender-typing Spatial ability 



The present research was supported in part by the Lenfest Summer Research Grant awarded to Megan Fulcher. The authors would like to thank Addie Healy, Catherine Simpson, Nelson Helm, Rebecca Olson, Kristin Hixson, and Stephanie Masters for their help in data collection. Also, we would like to thank all of the children and families for their participation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The research reported on in the manuscript, Building a Pink Dinosaur: The Effects of Gendered LEGO sets on Girls’ and Boys’ Play complies with ethical standards for research as directed by the American Psychological Association. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Washington and Lee University and the University of Texas at Tyler. Parents of participants gave written informed consent and children gave verbal assent before participating in data collection.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_806_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2131 kb)


  1. Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 12, 385–390. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigler, R. S., Hayes, A. R., & Liben, L. S. (2015). Analysis and evaluation of the rationales for single-sex schooling. In L. S. Liben & R. S. Bigler (Eds.) Advances in Child Behavior and Development, 47, 225–260. doi: 10.1016/bs.acdb.2014.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, R., Korobkova, K., & Epler, A. (2013). Barbie girls and xtractaurs: Discourse and identity in virtual worlds for young children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3, 83–98. doi: 10.1177/1468798413494920.Google Scholar
  4. Black, R. W., Tomlinson, B., & Korobkova, K. (2016). Play and identity in gendered LEGO® franchises. International Journal of Play, 5, 64–76. doi: 10.1080/21594937.2016.1147284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blakemore, J. E. O., & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of boys’ and girls’ toys. Sex Roles, 53, 619–633. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-7729-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Spatial ability in children’s play with LEGO® blocks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 19–28. doi: 10.2466/pms.1998.87.1.19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldera, Y. M., Culp, A. M., O’Brien, M., Truglio, R. T., Alvarea, M., & Huston, A. C. (1999). Children’s play preferences, construction play with blocks, and visual-spatial skills: Are they related? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 855–872. doi: 10.1080/016502599383577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 269–309. doi: 10.1080/07370000802177177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherney, I. D., Kely-Vance, L., Glover, K. G., Ruane, A., & Ryalls, B. O. (2003). The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play assessment in children aged 18–47 months. Educational Psychology, 23, 95–106. doi: 10.1080/01443410303222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cherney, I. D., Bersted, K., & Smetter, J. (2014). Training spatial skills on men and women. Perceptual & Motor Skills: Learnng & Memory, 119, 82–99. doi: 10.2466/23.25.PMS.119c12z0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cimpian, A., Mu, Y., & Erickson, L. C. (2012). Who is good at this game? Linking an activity to a social category undermines children’s achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 53–541. doi: 10.1177/0956797611429803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cotton, S. R., Shank, D. B., & Anderson, W. A. (2014). Gender, technology use, and ownership and media-based multitasking among middle school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coyle, E. F., & Liben, L. S. (2016). Affecting girls’ activity and job interests through play: The moderating roles of personal gender salience and game characteristics. Child Development, 87, 414–428. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dinella, L.M., Weisgram, E.M., Fulcher, M. (2016). Children’s gender-typed toy interests: Does propulsion matter? Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0901-5
  15. Doyle, R. A., Voyer, D., & Cherney, I. D. (2012). The relation between childhood spatial abilities and spatial abilities in adulthood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2012.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 18, 850–855. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Francis, B. (2010). Gender, toys, and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 36, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fulcher, M., & Coyle, E. F. (2017). Working at play: Gender-typed play and children’s developing skills, interests, and occupational aspirations. In E. S. Weisgram & L. M. Dinella (Eds.), Gender-typing of children’s toys. Washington, DC: APA Books, in press.Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein, D., Haldane, D., & Mitchell, C. (1990). Sex differences in visual-spatial ability: The role of performance factors. Memory & Cognition, 18, 546–550. doi: 10.3758/BF03198487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 61, 581–592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-11505710.1146/annurev-psych-010213-11557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jadva, V., Golombok, S., & Hines, M. (2010). Infants’ prefrences for toys, colors, and shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1261–1273. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills: Evidence from a large, representative U.S. sample. Psychological Science, 26, 301–310. doi: 10.1177/0956797614563338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Retrieved from .
  26. Katz, P. A., & Ksansnak, K. R. (1994). Developmental aspects of gender role flexibility and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 272–282. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kell, J. (2016). LEGO® says 2015 was its ‘best year ever’ with huge sales jump. Fortune. Retrieved from®-sales-toys-2015/ .
  28. Klugman, K. (2000). A bad hair day for G. I. Joe. In B. L. Clark & M. R. Higonnet (Eds.), Girls, boys, books, toys: Gender in children’s literature and culture (pp. 169–182). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. LEGO Friends. (2017, June 5). LEGO friends. Retrieved from
  30. Li, R. Y., & Wong, W. I. (2016). Gender-typed play and social abilities in boys and girls: Are they related? Sex Roles, 74, 399–410. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0580-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differentiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2), 1–183. doi: 10.1111/1540-5834.t01-1-00187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2011). Pretty in pink: The early development of gender-stereotyped colour preferences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 656–667. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02027.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119–1134. doi: 10.2307/1129498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGlone, M. S., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stereotype threat, identity salience, and spatial reasoning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 486–493. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). The new science of cognitive sex differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 37–45. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Moe, A. (2016). Does experience with spatial school subjects favour girls’ mental rotation performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 11–16. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreau, C. P., & Engeset, M. G. (2016). The downstream consequences of problem-solving mindsets: How playing with LEGO® influences creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 18–30. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson, A. (2005). Children’s toy collections in Sweden- A less gender-typed country? Sex Roles, 52, 93–102. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1196-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ness, D., & Farenga, S. J. (2007). Knowledge under construction: The importance of play in developing children’s spatial and geometric thinking. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Neuburger, S., Jansen, P., Heil, M., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2012). A threat in the classroom: Gender stereotype activation and mental-rotation performance in elementary-school children. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220, 61–69. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pennell, G. E. (1994). Babes in toyland: Learning an ideology of gender. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 359–364 Scholar
  43. Reed, D., Fox, L. H., Andrews, M. L., Betz, N., Evenstad, J. P., Harris, A., et al. (2007). Gender equity in testing and assessment. In S. S. Klein, B. Richardson, D. A. Grayson, L. H. Fox, C. Kramarae, D. S. Pollard, & C. A. Dwyer (Eds.), Handbook for achieving gender equity through education (2nd ed., pp. 155–169). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. doi: 10.4324/9781315759586.Google Scholar
  44. Safhalter, A., Vukman, K. B., & Glodez, S. (2016). The effect of 3D–Modeling training on students’ spatial reasoning relative to gender and grade. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54, 395–406. doi: 10.1177/0735633115620430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwartz, L. A., & Markham, W. T. (1985). Sex stereotyping in children’s toy advertisements. Sex Roles, 12, 157–170. doi: 10.1007/BF00288044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Serbin, L. A., Zelkowitz, P., Doyle, A. B., Gold, D., & Wheaton, B. (1990). The socialization of sex-differentiated skills and academic performance: A mediational model. Sex Roles, 23, 613–628. doi: 10.1007/BF00289251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shenouda, C. K., & Danovitch, J. H. (2014). Effects of gender stereotypes and stereotype threat on children’s performance on a spatial task. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 3–4, 53–77. Retrieved from Scholar
  48. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choice and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70–83. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sutfin, E. L., Fulcher, M., Bowles, R. P., & Patterson, C. J. (2008). How lesbian and heterosexual parents convey attitudes about gender to their children: The role of gendered environments. Sex Roles, 58, 501–513. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9368-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sweet, E.V. (2013, August). Same as it ever was? Gender and children’s toys over the 20th century. Paper presented at the 108th Annual American Sociological Meeting in New York, NY.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor, C., Clifford, A., & Franklin, A. (2013). Color preferences are not universal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1015–1027. doi: 10.1037/a0030273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Titze, C., Heil, M., & Jansen, P. (2010). Pairwise presentation of cube figures does not reduce gender differences in mental rotation. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 101–105. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tylen, K., Philipsen, J. S., Roepstorff, A., & Fusarroli, R. (2016). Trails of meaning construction: Symbolic artifacts engage the social brain. NeuroImage, 134, 105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.03.056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835. doi: 10.1037/a0016127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weisgram, E. S. (2016). The cognitive construction of gender stereotypes: Evidence for the dual pathways model of gender differentiation. Sex Roles, 75, 301–313. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0624-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weisgram, E. S., Fulcher, M., & Dinella, L. M. (2014). Pink gives permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colors on preschool children’s toy preferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 401–409. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wellesley College & American Association of University Women. (1995). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report: A study of major findings on girls and education. New York: Marlowe & Co..Google Scholar
  62. Wong, W. I., & Hines, M. (2015). Effects of gender color-coding on toddlers’ gender-typical toy play. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1233–1242. doi: 10.1007/s10508-014-0400-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWashington and Lee UniversityLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology & CounselingUniversity of Texas at TylerTylerUSA

Personalised recommendations