Building a Pink Dinosaur: the Effects of Gendered Construction Toys on Girls’ and Boys’ Play
- 955 Downloads
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.
KeywordsConstruction 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kaiser Family Foundation (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Retrieved from https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf .
- Kell, J. (2016). LEGO® says 2015 was its ‘best year ever’ with huge sales jump. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/LEGO®-sales-toys-2015/ .
- 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
- LEGO Friends. (2017, June 5). LEGO friends. Retrieved from https://www.lego.com/en-us/friends.
- Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pennell, G. E. (1994). Babes in toyland: Learning an ideology of gender. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 359–364 http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/5972/volumes/v21/NA-21.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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 www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-3-page-53.htm.Google Scholar
- 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
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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