1 Introduction

Starting from a young age, boys learn that they are fundamentally different from girls in a multitude of ways. From the clothes they wear to the activities they engage in, the gender binary becomes obvious to children in many aspects of their everyday lives [1,2,3,4]. Throughout childhood, their knowledge of gender norms and stereotypes becomes more complex as their exposure to various models of socialization increases [5, 6]. Through peer and family interactions, children acquire an understanding of gender expectations and as a result, learn to negotiate their own identities within different contexts [7,8,9,10]. For boys, the traditional masculinity ideology constrains them to conform to the expected male norms and discourages them from engaging in perceived feminine behaviors [11,12,13,14,15]. When endorsement of the standard of hegemonic masculinity is uncompromising and fixed, there can be serious consequences to both boys’ psychological and social wellbeing [7, 16,17,18]. Given the impact of social influences on boys’ gendered behaviors, the current study aimed to explore young boys’ existing working schema of masculinity and the role that their fathers play in shaping it.

1.1 Prominent theories of gender identity development

The study of gender identity development in childhood began in the early 1980s, with researchers aiming to comprehend how children come to understand and process gender related information. In 1981, Sandra Bem introduced the Gender Schema Theory about children’s understanding of gender, which suggests that children learn to process current and new information through an ever-changing gender schema [19]. Accordingly, children use this schema as a prescriptive guide to organize the behaviors, attitudes, and physical characteristics of both sexes into gender-based prototypes, against which they evaluate others and themselves [19]. As they learn which attributes are associated with each sex, children begin to assimilate their self-concept into the gender schema and regulate their behavior to conform to their culturally based notions of masculinity and femininity [19]. Gender differences in children’s play preferences emerge early on in childhood and evidence suggests that boys and girls display gender differences within the first years of life [20,21,22]. More specifically, preschool girls tend to exhibit greater preferences for dolls and domestic toys such as tea sets, kitchen items, while preschool boys exhibit greater preferences for playing with toy trucks and manipulative items such as Legos [22,23,24].

Another relevant theory was brought forth by Kay Bussey and Albert Bandura, who favoured social cognitive approach to gender identity development, and proposed a multifaceted transmission model that takes into account cognitive, social, affective and motivational [5]. Gender identity has been defined by Bussey [25] as involving the self-representation of a gendered self, informed by the knowledge and beliefs held of one’s own biological sex and gender, and the perceptions and treatment of others based on one’s gender [25]. SCT emphasizes the importance of modeling from parents, peers, and mass media as a major mode of influence on children’s acquisition of gender concepts, as these often promote traditional gender constructs. Additionally, the social power that accompanies modelling can have a significant impact on boys; specifically, it has been found that there is more careful monitoring of behavior with regards to gender on the part of boys, since they are more likely to be sanctioned for behaving in ways that deviate from the expected gender norms [5]. According to Martin, Ruble and Szkrybal [26], while SCT included variables such as the child’s emotional state, self-standards, and modelling experiences, both Gender Schema Theory and Social Cognitive Theories propose that children display gender-typed behavior before they have developed gender-related cognitions. Once more, this emphasizes the important influential role of socialization on children’s gender identity development, and tendency to engage in gender typed behaviors and activities.

1.2 The role of hegemonic masculinity

According to Farkas and Leaper, boys are more concerned with the imposition and strict following of gender norms for two main reasons: (a) the clear definition of norms for their gender, and (b) the fact that traditionally masculine traits and activities tend to have a higher status than their feminine counterparts [27, 28]. Boys learn about the perceived superiority of the male gender through the concept of hegemonic masculinity, which refers to a culturally dominant form of masculinity produced through discourses and practices of power and authority [13, 29,30,31]. The ‘boy code’ which operates on a fear-based social learning mechanism, contains a set of rules and regulations about socially acceptable ways of being for boys; it includes behaviors such as showcasing physical and athletic ability, demonstrating sexual prowess, proving toughness, and refraining from expressing one’s emotions with others [16, 17, 32]. The Theory of Precarious Manhood emphasizes the powerful role of patriarchal societal norms that consider “masculinity as a highly valuable, socially conferred, hard won, and easily lost status that requires constant demonstrations of worthiness” [33]. Accordingly, as boys attempt to ensure that their own masculinity is never doubted, they may engage in potentially harmful behaviors of authority and dominance as a way to prove their masculinity to their male counterparts. Whereas when boys attempt to break the rules of the boy code, they often report a sense of being watched and fear the possibility of being attacked and scrutinized by their peers [7].

1.3 The role of fathers

It is evident that social influences, such as a boy’s parents and peers have the potential to inform, encourage and constrain them to conform to the socially prescribed male norms through reinforcement, punishment, and observational learning [12, 13, 34]. Specifically, parents play a significant role in how children come to negotiate their gender identity and also shape their behaviors by endorsing gender stereotypes [8, 10]. Parents will typically communicate their expectations to their sons by using verbal and nonverbal cues, and overt actions, such as the conveying of a gender segregated division of labour in the household, using a firmer tone of voice, and communicating the importance of playing sports [8, 29]. As a result, boys receive the message from their parents that girls and boys are different in significant ways [1].

Relatedly, boys’ relationships with parents are often characterized by lower levels of warmth, depth, and self-disclosure, in addition to fewer instances of seeking out of parental support when experiencing emotional events [27]. The effects of the socialization process, whereby boys are discouraged from expressing and sharing their emotions with their parents, may be related to a condition known as alexithymia, which means “without words for emotions” [35]. Levant et al., posited that fathers specifically play an important role in the gender role socialization as they convey both implicitly and explicitly, gender appropriate ways of being to their sons [9]. In a study that assessed college men’s recollections of their fathers’ expectations for their masculinity, many participants reported the sentiment that their fathers may have felt that it was their job was to “toughen them up” and “make men out of them” [9]. As a result, boys are likely to grow up feeling increased pressure to live up to an internalized ideal of masculinity, which includes avoiding emotions and concealing vulnerabilities, engaging in aggressive behaviors, and displaying attitudes of dominance and strength [27, 35, 36]. Much of the research examining the father–son relationship has been conducted with young adult males, who express greater feelings of insecurity, masculine gender role stress and issues related to self-esteem related to growing up with fathers who were perceived as being emotionally distant and hypermasculine [37, 38]. Levant et al., posits that the ways in which fathers model traditional masculine behaviors to their sons has important and long-lasting effects on their sons, including poorer psychological health and aggressive behavior toward women [9].

1.4 Deviating from gender norms

The cultural and societal pressure that is imposed on boys to live up and conform to an idealized form of their gender identity poses a significant risk for those who may deviate from this ideal [11, 39]. In a study by Blakemore, which evaluated boys' and girls’ knowledge of gender norms (e.g., toys, clothing, parental roles, occupations, etc.), children between 3 and 11-year-olds demonstrated that knowledge and comprehension of such norms, including norm violations, increased with age [12, 13]. In line with Social Cognitive Theory [5], Blakemore also revealed that as children got older, they reported increasingly negative evaluations of boys’ gender norm violations, in comparison to girls’ gender norm violations; for instance, boys’ violations were perceived as harshly as moral violations, such as stealing [12, 13]. When boys engage in stereotypically feminine behaviors they are likely to be perceived as “weak” and “less of a man” [11] and as a result, they learn that they need to display and exaggerate their masculine qualities, while suppressing feminine ones in order to avoid having others question their masculinity [7].

It can be extremely challenging for boys to defy the standard of hegemonic masculinity, as its presence is prominent throughout many aspects of their lives. Much of the research on boys’ development suggests that there is a need for greater support and attempts to help teach boys how to reflect and think critically about gender norms [7, 40,41,42]. In a study by Way et al., which aimed to explore the patterns of adolescent boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity, the researchers reported that boys’ close relationships to their parents was an influential factor contributing to the maintenance of resistance over time [17]. The expression of emotions and vulnerability shared by boys and a close significant other appears to be a key component in the relationship between resistance to hegemonic masculinity and psychological wellbeing [16, 17].

2 The current study

Whether to succumb to or to resist stereotypical norms, boys face the challenge of an identity struggle that is not often addressed in the developmental literature. Having access to a close confiding relationship with a parent can help boys navigate this process [7, 43]. While there has been a significant number of quantitative studies exploring the value of the father–son relationship from the perspectives of adult sons’ [9, 16, 17], qualitative research on the young child’s point of view is limited. Given the impact fathers have on their sons’ future adult behaviors, this study aims to explore fathers’ impact on young boys’ developing schema of masculinity. According to Freeman [44], parents tend to express gender neutral attitudes in their responses to the Child-Rearing Sex-Role Attitude Scale, while their children tend to predict more gender stereotypical behaviours from their parents.

The current study aimed to discover how boys come to make choices for their own and the opposite gender, the ways in which they justified such choices, and how their fathers’ presence influenced their understanding of gender stereotypes. The reason for investigating the behaviours of preschool and early elementary children is that they are just beginning to develop a more complex knowledge and understanding of gender norms and stereotypes, as the role of social influences becomes more prominent.

3 Methodology

Given the state of the pandemic situation and lockdown restrictions in Canada at the time, the study took place virtually, through the use of the video-conferencing platform Zoom. The method of convenience sampling was used to recruit participants, as this was the easiest and safest method given pandemic restrictions [45]. Recruitment posters were circulated throughout the researcher’s social networks and in two Montreal first grade classrooms, in aims of reaching a desired sample size of 6 to 8 father–son pairs.

3.1 Questionnaire

The Child-Rearing Sex-Role Attitude Scale was used to assess fathers’ attitude about male and female roles (see Online Appendix A). The 14-item 5-point Likert questionnaire was adapted from a study by Freeman [44] and was meant to assess adults’ attitudes and beliefs about gender related toys, activities, and behaviors.

3.2 Virtual chest of toys

In collaboration with a computer game developer, sorting game was created where the young children could select from an assortment of toys/games, and then place their selection(s) into a toy chest. Each activity was set up in a “playroom” with the same layout and functions. In two activities, a boy character or a girl character were added to the playroom, next to the toy chest (see Figs. 1, 2 and 3 in Online Appendix B). The game was developed using a platform known as SCORM Cloud, which allowed for simultaneous recording of the children’s choices during the activities.

The assortment of toys included 24 toys presented in a visually appealing manner to the children. These include nine stereotypically “boy toys” (i.e., a toy truck, a Lego set, a football, a superhero costume, etc.); nine stereotypically “girl toys” (i.e., a doll, a tea set, a toy kitchen, a ballerina tutu, etc.), and six “gender neutral” toys (i.e., a boardgame, a puzzle, a book, etc.). The current list of toys was developed from a collection of studies that have conducted toy-preference experiments with children ranging from 3 to 8 years of age [20, 21, 23, 44, 46, 47]. While many studies have included only two categories of “boy” and “girl” toys, gender neutral toys will be included in this study, because these are considered to be equally preferred by both girls and boys and offer the option of a less gender stereotypical toy for the participants to choose from [20, 21, 23, 44, 46, 47].

3.3 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the young boys’ existing working schema of masculinity, and their rationale for gender-typed toy preferences. Upon choosing a toy, boys were asked a series of follow-up questions in order to obtain a better understanding of their reasoning; some of these questions included: What toy did you choose? Why did you choose that toy? Have you played with that toy before? When asked to choose toys that boys, girls or both boys and girls would like to play with, the researcher asked the children to compare and contrast among their choices, so as to encourage the boys to think critically about their choices.

3.4 Participants

Data from six father–son pairs were used in the study; participants resided in the Greater Montreal Area and were of middle-class family households. Boys were aged from 4 to 7 years old and for anonymity purposes, they have been given the following pseudonyms: Luke (4 years old), Marc (4 years old), Christopher (5 years old), Brad (5 years old), Jason (7 years old) and Alex (7 years old). All boys had at least one sibling, with Luke and Carter having one brother, Alex and Marc having one sister, and Jason and Brad who were siblings, also had one sister.

Demographic information about the fathers including their age, race and number of children were collected prior to their completion of the Sex-Role Attitude Scale; fathers were asked to provide this information in a short questionnaire which appeared upon accessing the link to the online Sex-Role Attitude Scale. All fathers self-identified as White/Caucasian and were aged between 34 and 37 years. Again, for anonymity purposes, fathers were given the following pseudonyms: Rodney (Luke’s dad), Jesse (Marc’s dad), Matthew (Christopher’s dad), Joey (Brad and Jason’s dad) and Frank (Alex’s dad). Four of the fathers (Rodney, Matthew, Jesse and Frank) had between 1 and 2 children, and one of the fathers (Joey) had 3 children.

3.5 Qualitative data analysis

The current study involved the use of both a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews via the Zoom platform to explore fathers’ and sons’ gender-role beliefs. By adopting a phenomenological approach and conducting the interviews with semi-structured, open-ended questions allowed the participants to share their individual perspectives and experiences [45]. As described by Saldaña, when analyzing interviews that are destined towards revealing a specific individual’s perspective, it is imperative to prioritize coding the participant’s data, rather than the researcher’s questions and comments [48]. However, when the interaction between participant and researcher was deemed significant, in terms of constructing meaning, then it would be appropriate for the researcher’s contributions to be coded along with the participants’ verbatim [48]. The boys’ varying ages might have influenced the extent to which their coherent narratives and rationale during the interviews, and the exchanges between the researcher and participants were more than just information gathering, thus these were additionally coded. The data was pre-coded by reading through the transcripts, and highlighting important participants’ quotes, which allowed for an efficient first cycle of coding.

The In Vivo coding method was used for coding of the semi-structured interviews; this involved the creation of codes based on the direct language used by the participant, which allowed for the child’s voice to be central, in addition to grounding the analysis from hid perspective [45, 48]. Given that the aim of the study was to understand gender stereotypes from a voice that has often been neglected, the young male perspective [49], in Vivo coding provided a deep and complete understanding of this unique point of view [48], In addition, the researcher’s field notes on the voice tone, gestures and non-verbal communication, further provided useful information that applied to deeming codes as significant and added meaning to the participant’s statements. Process coding was simultaneously used to understand the interactions and emotions the children expressed in response to certain situations, as they recalled instances that took place with their fathers or in their experience playing with siblings and other children. On select occasions, emotion coding was used to analyze non-verbal cues, such as laughter and sarcasm. As described by Saldaña, acknowledging the emotions that accompany thoughts and actions allows for greater insight into the participant’s perspective [48]. In sum, the use of multiple coding methods within the cycle of coding allowed the researcher to provide codes that were detailed, yet reflective of the participants’ voice, experiences, and emotions.

4 Results

The children who participated in this study were asked to choose from the Virtual Chest of Toys what they would like to play with their fathers, with either a boy or a girl, or with boys and girls. These activities elicited the children’s play preferences as well as their beliefs about what are appropriate toys for their gender—i.e., boys.

4.1 Choosing a toy to play with father

The data collected from the boys’ responses to both the forced and free-choice toy preference tasks revealed their implicit knowledge of gender norms. The boys’ responses were categorized as follows based on the toys presented: stereotypically boy (SB), stereotypically girl (SG) and gender neutral (NT).

When the boys were asked to pick a toy to play with their fathers, 5 out of 6 chose the SB toys presented on screen, with choices ranging from the superhero costume, Legos, Nintendo Switch and the football. The reasoning offered for their choices ranged from familiarity with the toy, the functionality of the toy and enjoyment of the toy. Christopher, age 5, whose father did not have any direct involvement in his choice, spent a few seconds quietly thinking before choosing the football (SB) to play with his father. While he did not consider any other options, nor did he verbalize a direct reason for his choice, Christopher was certain in his choice as he did not hesitate when sharing his response. Although there was no clear reasoning offered for his choice, he did recall a memory of playing football with his father and brother in the summertime and added that his brother got upset when he tackled him. On the other hand, Marc, age 4, who chose the superhero costume (SB), immediately knew that was what he wanted to pick, shouting “That one!!!”. His choice was motivated by his perception of enjoyment of the toy (“because it’s soooooo cool”), and by his familiarity with the toy; he and his father told a story about how his dad had bought him and his sister matching Superman and Superwoman costumes. Brothers Jason and Brad, ages 7 and 5, respectively, both chose the Nintendo Switch (SB) to play with their dad. Initially, they did not spontaneously elaborate on their reasoning and explanations, but as their father started to talk about how the boys spend lots of time both at school and at home playing with their Nintendo Switch, they opened up to talk about their favourite game. While they were shy at first, their newfound enthusiasm appears to have been a result of watching their father share his explanation about why his sons’ might have chosen the Nintendo Switch. Familiarity with and enjoyment of the Nintendo Switch motivated their choices.

Luke, 4 years old, initially chose the NT Play-doh, but was promptly questioned by his father, “Play doh? […] You don’t want to play with the Legos?”. In response Luke changed his choice of toy from a NT one to a SB toy—the Legos. Here, it is worth noting Luke’s passive acceptance of his father’s suggestion; Luke did not argue, nor question his suggestion but instead he looked at his father and said: “Ohhh…what about that too!”.

Alex, 7 years old, also chose a NT toy—the Connect 4 board game—and when asked why, he explained his choice by describing the functionality of the game, “because it’s a strategy game, so like you have to, like you have to figure out what the opponent's next move is going to be […] and then you use your move”. It was particularly notable that Alex was the only boy who sought his father’s input about his choice of toy; a negotiation between them took place where they systematically chose their top three options and from there deduced which toy they wanted to play with the most. The interaction between Alex and his father was quite interesting as his father shared that when they usually play together, naturally Alex would dictate the terms of what toy or activity they would play with, however here he emphasized to his son that they would be picking together. Additionally, when considering their potential options, both Alex and his father were open to hearing one another’s thoughts and opinions and after eventually deciding on the Connect 4 boardgame, the pair shared in mutual agreement by nodding their heads while looking at each other.

4.1.1 Independent choice

When the boys were asked to choose, without discussing with their fathers, a toy that they would like to play with their fathers, Christopher and the two brothers, Jason and Brad, continued to choose another SB toy (Nintendo Switch, football, respectively). Familiarity with the toy, again, played a role in their choices: Christopher shared that he has a Nintendo Switch at home and that he and his brother are currently trying to find a way to have multiple players so that they can play together with their dad. Jason and Brad’s father recalled a memory where him and his sons gathered a big pile of leaves in the fall, and he would throw his sons the football and they would end up diving into the pile of leaves as they ran to catch it. The boys and their fathers engaged in a moment of sincere laughter with smiles on their faces, as they reminisced on a fun moment that they had shared together.

The two youngest children, Marc and Luke, who had previously chosen SB toys when asked to pick with their fathers, shifted to a NT and SG toy, respectively, when they chose independently. Marc’s father accepted his new choice of a xylophone without any interference and in fact smiled when his son explained his reasoning for choosing the musical instrument: “Because they make beautiful music!”. However, when Luke chose the toy kitchen to play with his father, his choice was once again questioned by his father who laughingly asked “You want the kitchen?”. Luke was flummoxed and turned to his father when asked why he would like to play in the toy kitchen with his father. To reinforce his disapproval, his father chuckled and said, “Don’t look at me!” and proceeded to look away from his son (see Online Appendix E). Luke eventually explained his reasoning by describing the functionality of the toy kitchen, and the food that he and his dad could make while playing with it.

In comparison, Alex who had previously chosen a NT toy with his father, had now changed his choice to a SB toy—the football. When asked why he chose the football this time around, Alex appeared to have been influenced by his father: “because…my dad, before he said that he wanted to choose the football, so I’m choosing it now”. The response from Alex’s father was relatively neutral to his son’s choice; he did not convey any verbal or non-verbal signs of agreement.

4.2 Choosing a toy to play with timmy and rosie

When the boys were asked to choose a toy to play with two make-believe friends, Timmy and Rosie, in order to elicit their understanding of gender-stereotyped preferences, Jason and Alex, both age 7, chose SB toys to play with Timmy (Football, Nintendo Switch), but NT toys to play with Rosie (Play-doh and Slinky). When they were asked to explain their choices of toys with Timmy, they appeared to rely on intuitive understanding of boys’ preferences and they were rather vague in their rationale: “Because we're going to go on a computer and we can't really play with any of the outdoor toys… and we can only play with the indoor toys” (Alex). Jason was initially silent when asked why he chose the football; when he was further interjected and asked if football is a sport he enjoys playing, he then nodded his head in agreement. In contrast, they were more articulate about their choices for Rosie, and the reasoning offered were based on functionality and gender preferences:

Alex::

“Because usually girls like to play with Play Doh a lot of times”

Jason::

“Because you can mold it different stuff and make what you want with them”

The two youngest boys, Marc and Luke, did not appear to take into consideration gender-stereotyped preferences when they chose toys to play with Timmy or Rosie. Marc chose NT play-doh and slinky to play with Timmy and Rosie, while Luke chose the SG toy Dora the Explorer computer for Timmy and the NT toy microphone for Rosie. When providing reasoning for their choices, Luke focused on the enjoyment that both Timmy and Rosie would have playing with the toys, while Marc explained his choices in terms of the functionality of the toys:

Luke::

“We could play with [play-doh] because there's soooo much we can build with it”

Marc::

“Because [the slinky] walks down the stairs!”

While Christopher took into consideration gender-stereotyped preference when choosing the SG toy (Barbie doll) for Rosie, he chose the NT cuddly toy to play with Timmy. When asked by the researcher as to why he would think Timmy would enjoy playing with that toy with him, he referred to his own preference for playing with stuffed animals and added that he has a big stuffed dinosaur at home.

Brad who was 5 years of age, chose stereotypically BT for both Timmy and Rosie (Nintendo Switch and airplane), and for his two choices, he also provided reasoning that was based on the function and his own personal enjoyment of the toy. When explaining his choice of the Nintendo Switch for Timmy, he said: “Because it’s fun and you get to make your own buildings and you get your own houses and you can make axes…”, and for the airplane for Rosie: “Because I find it cool, and I find that its cool that they could fly through the air”.

Overall, the boys’ rationale for their choices in choosing a toy to play with their fathers, or with Timmy and Rosie were influenced by their perception of enjoyment and functionality of the toys. However, none of the boys offered explicit explanations based on their play experience involving other children.

4.3 Choosing toys to play with boys vs. girls

Consistency was observed across all the children when they were asked to choose three toys that they thought only girls would like to play with: they all chose SG toys for girls. When boys were asked to choose toys for girls, the exclusive focus on girls was highlighted in the phrasing of the question itself, whereas when they were asked to choose a toy to play with Rosie, they took into consideration what they would enjoy playing with. This was particularly evident in Brad’s choices. He recognized that girls would prefer the doll, tea set and Dora the Explorer computer as toys, because “….. usually I see girls like, sometimes I see girls like, get pots of….. and like pretend they have water in cups and they feed their dolls”. In contrast, when he chose a toy to play with Rosie, he chose the airplane that he liked.

Three other boys (Alex, Jason and Brad) also added that it was easier to choose toys for girls. Alex stated: “Because there is less options, and usually boys don’t really play with the girl toys as much”. Among the boys, only Christopher felt that it was harder to choose toys for girls because he was less familiar with “girl stuff”.

When the boys were asked to pick three toys that they thought only boys would like to play with, they also included at least one SB toy in their choices. Three boys (Marc, Christopher and Alex) chose exclusively SB toys (superhero costume, football, wrestler doll, and Spiderman action figure); in particular, Spiderman and wrestler doll were chosen by all three of them. Their rationale emphatically revealed strong gender stereotyped preferences. For example, Marc, 4 years old, said, “because they’re boys stuff”. Christopher and Alex, who are 6 and 7 years old respectively, indicated that “girls don’t like to play football”, and Christopher additionally asserted that the physical demand of the sport rendered it unpopular for girls “…..there’s like tackling, so [the girls] don’t want to play it”.

Among the three other boys who did not exclusively choose SB toys, they each included some SB toys in their choices. Jason and Brad each chose two SB toys; Jason included one NT toy (boardgame), while Brad included one SG toy (jewellery set).

Luke and Brad, the 4-year-olds, chose SB toys for boys, but they each included one SG toy as well. For Luke, who chose a SB toy (toolbox) and a NT toy (Puzzle), also included the cuddly toy (SG), which he perceived as a “boy toy” because of the potential enjoyment boys would have when playing with it. Brad, who chose two SB toys (Nintendo Switch and Spiderman action figure), included a jewelry set (SG) in his selection. There was a change in his typical tone of voice and usual eye contact were observed when he provided explanation for his choice of the jewelry set, as he began to lean further into his father’s chest and hide his face. The shyness exhibited by Brad, when explaining his choice of the SG jewelry set, suggested a sense of embarrassment for having chosen a SG toy. In this manner, he showed an implicit knowledge of what toys are considered “acceptable” and “not acceptable” for boys to play with. According to two of the boys, Marc and Alex, having a young sister as a playmate appeared to have informed their knowledge and rationale for gender-stereotyped toys for girls. Marc, who chose the tea set as one of the toys for girls, explained that he often played make-believe tea party with his younger sister. In parallel, Alex was also certain that girls would not enjoy SB toys:

Researcher::

“And what about the Spiderman and the wrestler, girls don’t like to play with those either?”

Alex::

“Noo…I don’t think I seen my sister play with a Spiderman toy or a wrestler”

He further ascertained that he had never seen girls at school play with Spiderman or wrestler figurines. However, he acquiesced that, if his younger sister were to ask him to play with the Spiderman toy, he would find it acceptable:

Researcher::

“So let’s say [your sister] came up to you and said “Can I play with your Spiderman?” What would you say? Would it be okay if she played with it?”

Alex::

“Yessss”

4.4 Choosing toys to play with boys and girls

For the last question, boys were asked was to choose three toys that they thought both boys and girls would like to play with. The responses provided for this question included the most variability, as was expected, given that they were asked to choose toys for both genders. In explaining his inclination to include NT toys for both boys and girls, Alex expressed a firm believe that it was unlikely that girls would enjoy playing with the SB toys he had chosen. Four other boys (Marc, Brad, Christopher and Jason) recognized the context of sharing and mutuality and included at least one NT toy in their choices (e.g., such as the puzzle, play-doh, slinky, Connect 4 boardgame, and storybook). Brad explained his choice of the NT slinky from what he had seen at a party: “I chose the slinky because once I was at a party and I saw boys and girls playing with it so…”.

However, there were also SB toys (Nintendo Switch, Legos and plane) and SG toys (Dora the Explorer computer, jewelry set, toy kitchen, doll, tea set, and microphone) included in the boys’ choices. The reasoning for these choices were related to their functionality, the enjoyment of the toys, as well as their familiarity and experience having played with the toys. Jason, age 7, focused on functionality when he said: “The necklaces and the beads, because….. ummm…..boys and girls could wear necklaces with beads on it. And boys and girls could…um…read books together”. Christopher, age 6, was adamant that toys are not only for one gender “because boys like kitchen stuff and they play, and girls like to play with blocks and boys too. And some girls like to play board games and some boys too” (see Online Appendix E).

In summary, the boys in the study were inclined to identify stereotypically boy toys when they were choosing with their fathers. When given the opportunity to choose, independently, a toy to play with their fathers, most of the boys did not expand their choices to include any stereotypically girl toys. The boys also expressed strong and consistent stereotyped belief that girls preferred to play with stereotypically girl toys. Similarly, when they had to choose a toy that they would like to play with another girl (i.e., Rosie), they clearly recognized that a stereotypically boy toy would not be appropriate. In contrast, the boys in this study showed more varied preferences when they had to choose toys for boys. While they all included at least one stereotypically boy toy when asked to imagine what toys boys usually liked to play with, two of the boys identified two stereotypically girl toy as their preference. The boys’ responses in each condition are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Boys’ choices of toys in different play conditions
Full size table

4.5 Fathers’ responses to the child-rearing sex-role attitude scale

Fathers who participated in the study responded to twelve statements that reflected their attitudes and beliefs about gender-appropriate behavior and expectations. These statements were adapted from the Child-Rearing Sex-Role Attitude Scale [44]. Their responses to the statements are summarized in Table 2. Three out of the 12 statements where consensus was shared amongst all fathers. Firstly, when considering the two statements about gender equality among boys and girls, all fathers agreed that both boys and girls need to develop social skills, and to acquire math and science competencies. Secondly, with regards to the statement assessing response to gender typed activities, all fathers shared in disagreement that only boys should be permitted to play competitive sports. Most remaining statements garnered approximate consensus among fathers (i.e., having of the five fathers sharing similar opinion), with the exception of the two following statements: “I would buy my son a doll”, and “I would not hire a male babysitter”. Luke’s and Alex’s fathers, Rodney and Frank, respectively, were certain that they would not buy their sons a doll (Statement 8), and that they would not hire a male babysitter (Statement 9). When considering Rodney’s response to Statement 8, which assessed fathers’ attitudes towards cross-gender play, a maintenance of beliefs was held and reflected during the interview when he seemingly disapproved of Luke’s choice of a cross-gender toy (e.g., choosing the toy kitchen to play with his dad). Additionally, when Luke chose the doll as one the toys that he thought both girls and boys would enjoy playing with, Rodney repeatedly questioned him, “Where did you play with a doll?” and “Where did you play with a doll?”. When Luke hesitated and did not answer his father, his father made a point to clarify to the researcher that his son has never played with a doll before: “I don’t think you ever played with a doll…”, while chuckling under his breath.

Table 2 Fathers’ responses to child-rearing sex-role attitude scale (adapted)
Full size table

Alex’s father, Frank, expressed the strongest gender-stereotyped attitudes among the fathers. His responses to the statements showed: (a) that he would not buy his son a doll (Statement 8), that boys who exhibit “sissy” behaviors will never be well adjusted (Statement 5), (c) that he feels upset when he sees boys put on a dress when they play dress-up (Statement 7), (d) that he would not hire a male babysitter (Statement 9), and (e) that boys, more than girls, need competitive sports (Statement 10). In other instances, Frank’s differential responses to the statements appeared to be prompted by the subtleties in the wording. For example, he disagreed with the statement that “Only boys should be permitted to play competitive sports”, but he agreed with the statement that “Boys, more than girls, need competitive sports”; these responses revealed that while he believed that boys, more than girls, need competitive sports, he did not believe that girls should be barred from competitive sports. Similar beliefs were echoed by Alex when he shared that it would be unlikely for girls to enjoy playing with stereotypically boy toys, however he would be accepting if his sister were to want to play with one of his SB toys.

Contrary to his gender-stereotyped responses on the questionnaire, Frank was most likely to engage his son in reflecting on his choices. He often questioned Alex’s gender-stereotyped choices and seemingly tried to prompt Alex to accept cross-gender toys:

Frank::

“But now I have a question for you…would you play with Wonder Woman?”

Alex::

“No!!” *smiling*

Frank::

“No? Why wouldn’t you play with Wonderwoman?”

Alex::

“Umm… I don’t want to”

Frank::

“What about Batwoman?”

Alex::

“No”

Frank::

“Supergirl?”

Alex::

“No”

Frank::

“So because they’re girls, you wouldn’t play with them?”

Alex::

“Mhmmm…” (nods head yes)

Frank::

“Okay. There’s no right or wrong answer, that’s your answer”

Contradictions between attitude and behaviours were expressed differently by Christopher’s father, Matthew. On one hand, he agreed that boys could have the balance of competitiveness and vulnerability (Statement 10 and Statement 3), he was “undecided” about his son choosing a female-stereotyped profession of nursing (Statement 4). Throughout the interview, Matthew was mostly quiet and uninvolved when Christopher’s choices reflected gender-stereotyping, but he intervened and questioned Christopher when he made gender non-conforming choices. For example, when choosing a toy to play with Timmy, Christopher at first jokingly chose the SG toy (stroller), to which his dad immediately laughed and said, “Don’t be silly!”. When Christopher persisted to choose another SG toy (the cuddly toy), Matthew turned to his son and rhetorically asked, “The cuddly toy? You think that [Timmy]’s gonna want to play with the cuddly toy with you?”. Later, Matthew again tried to assert his influence on his son’s response when Christopher’s chose the SG toy kitchen as one of the toys that boys would like to play with:

Matthew::

“Would a boy want to play with the kitchen though?”

Christopher::

“Noooooo” he laughingly responds

When Christopher mistakenly dragged the kitchen into the toy-chest, Matthew proceeded to take the mouse from his son’s hand and removed the kitchen for him. The fact that Matthew was quick in his reaction and did not wait for his son to remove the kitchen himself, inferred a strong message that cross-gender play was unacceptable and that he would not be disregarded and ignored a second time.

Among the fathers who responded to the statements, two of the fathers, Joey (Jason & Brad) and Jesse (Marc), expressed openness to gender non-conforming attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. In comparison to the some of the more stereotypical views conveyed by the other fathers, both Joey and Jesse’s responses to the statements showed: (a) that they do not feel upset when they see boys put on a dress when they play dress-up (Statement 7), (b) that boys do not need competitive sports more than girls (Statement 10), (c) that they strongly disagree that boys who exhibit “sissy” behaviors will never be well adjusted (Statement 5), and (d) that it is not healthy for boys to cry only when they have been hurt (Statement 3). For Jesse, the acceptance he shared in his responses on the scale were also conveyed in his interaction with his son; after having completed the independent choice task where Marc chose the NT xylophone to play with dad, he proceeded to drag the jewellery set into the virtual toy chest. In comparison to the reactions other boys received when choosing a SG toy, Marc received a more accepting from his father:

Jesse::

“What was that buddy? You added something else in Marc...do you know what that is?”

Marc::

“Ummm I don’t know…”

Jesse::

“That’s for making jewellery, like beads and necklaces and stuff. If that’s what you want, you can choose that!”

During that moment, Jesse made it known to his son that if he were to choose the jewellery set instead of the xylophone that would be completely acceptable, and it also suggests that the beliefs Jesse holds about cross-gender play are consistent with his behaviours during the interview with his son.

Similarly, Joey was also observed demonstrating openness and acceptance towards his son’s (Brad) choice of SG toys, when he was asked to choose toys that he thought only girls would like. When Brad picked the doll and referred to her by the name “Rapunzel”, his older brother Jason immediately turned to him and began laughing: “Rapunzel?!”. The response he received for calling the doll by her name, elicited a strong emotional reaction in Brad where he proceeded to become silent and slowly slipped off his seat, and hid off camera as he laid on the ground. It is worth noting, that while the interview focused on the father’s role, Brad’s mother intervened to address the situation as her son appeared to be distraught by what had happened. Together with Brad’s mother, the pair reassured their son that he was not being laughed at and that they had not expected him to know the doll’s name. After picking Brad up off the floor, and placing him on his lap, Joey looked at his son and whispered: “Go ahead Brad, continue what you we’re saying. We want to hear what you have to say”. The way in which Joey helped bring his son back to the interview after he experienced a moment of embarrassment for expressing knowledge of SG toys, further demonstrates the acceptance he conveyed towards gender-nonconformity in his responses to the Sex-Role Attitude Scale. In the same way that Joey agreed that he would buy his son a doll, when faced with a real-life situation where his son was “interacting” with a doll, Joey did not show any reluctance nor did he disapprove his son for knowing the doll’s name.

5 Discussion

One of the most consistent findings in the present study was that even the youngest boys at age 4 appeared to have already developed stereotypical definitions of “girl toys”. This was inferred from the data where all the boys chose exclusively SG toys for girls, and therefore, have a more gendered view of what it meant to be a “girl”. While recent research suggests that gender stereotypes of girls revolved around appearances, and stereotypes of boys revolved more around activities [1, 50, 51], these findings suggested that boys were taking into account more than just the “pink frilly dresses”, but they are also well-aware of girls’ activities and toy preferences. Although it cannot be ascertained that broad gender norms were more clearly defined for girls than they were for boys, the stereotyped choices shared by the boys nevertheless suggested that they have already developed and internalized a repertoire of gender preferences for the opposite gender.

In addition, it is also interesting to consider how boys might use their internalized gender schemas differentially for themselves vs. for girls [52]. Children often make use of their generalized in-group/out-group schema to categorize objects, behaviors, and roles as being for males or females; as such, they refer to this schema to decide what is appropriate for both genders. For example, boys would rely on their in-group/out-group schema to conclude that “girls play with dolls” or “girls don’t like football”. In contrast, the boys who participated in this study shared a more nuanced definition of “boy toys”. When they were asked to choose toys to play with a make-believe male friend, there appeared to be greater flexibility and perhaps more possibilities for deviation from the norm of what boys “should” like. There was an even distribution between exclusively boy toys for boys, as well as inclusion of girl toys and gender-neutral toys for boys. Bussey’s ideology of gender identity development as an ongoing process, lend support to boys’ tendency to choose outside of the strict gender stereotype for “boy toys” [25]. Bussey postulated that children learn to construct their identity from the social and personal influences in their lives, as well as different contexts in which they find themselves; therefore, their in-group/out-group schema is but one factor that they would consider [25]. When choosing toys for boys, including Timmy, they might also consider personal preferences and experiences while choosing “things for me” and “things not for me”. Martin & Halverson explain how children’s own-sex schema is important because it captures how they make stereotyped choices as a member a specific gender category [52].

Additionally, in the presence of their fathers, 5 out of the 6 boys chose SB toys to play with fathers. Even without the direct involvement of their fathers, the boys’ choices included almost exclusively boy toys, with the exception of one gender-neutral and one girl toy. This finding suggests that boys not only have developed an awareness of the kinds of toys their fathers would approve of, but that they are also conforming to their fathers’ expectations, based on this awareness and knowledge of what their fathers prefer.

While the issue of social desirability had previously been anticipated with the use of the Sex-Role Attitude Scale [44], this study found a close correspondence between the beliefs fathers conveyed on the scale and the behaviours they expressed during the interviews. Fathers who shared stereotypical and/or non-stereotypical beliefs on the scale, also expressed very similar beliefs in their behaviours throughout the interview with their sons. The correspondence between the beliefs and behaviours suggests that fathers felt at ease sharing their true and honest opinions with the researcher and did not feel the pressure to portray a “socially acceptable” version of themselves. The divided level of acceptance to the item: “I would buy my son a doll”, however, did reveal some telling differences of opinion among fathers and their varying levels acceptance with regards to cross-gender play. It has been reported that parents express a sense of discomfort towards boys’ behaviors that might be considered to be feminine [44]. However, in the current study, two fathers (Joey and Jesse) agreed that they would buy their son a doll, which may suggest a possible shift in fathers’ attitudes away from traditional masculine norms and expectations. Although this was only observed in two fathers in the study, their responses should be considered in light of the previous studies, which portrayed boys’ gender roles as rigid [24, 51,52,53,54].

6 Limitations

Some limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting the results. Firstly, the small sample size is one of the most important factors which contributes to the limited data that was collected. While the participants consisted of boys with siblings, counterbalancing the sample by including boys who are only children, and boys with sisters and without sisters would allow for a close look at sibling influences. In addition, more children in each age group would provide a better understanding of the different ways in which age played a role in boys’ awareness and expression of gender related knowledge.

Secondly, a larger sample size would also allow for the inclusion of more diverse demographic variables. The sample in the present study was relatively homogeneous, as it consisted only of white, middle-class boys and their fathers. Research suggests that the performative role of “fatherhood” can be greatly influenced by demographic variables such as age, race [55], and ethnic heritage [56]. Furthermore, the intersection of an individual’s race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc., emphasize the complex nature of how the social construct of “masculinity” might operate differently in particular cultures or contexts [30, 35]. Thus, future studies should consider recruitment of a more diverse sample in order to reflect the richness of the father–son relationship.

7 Significance of the study and future research directions

While the present findings have added valuable information to the growing research on the role of fathers in their sons’ gender role socialization, there remain unanswered questions: How would fathers react when seeing their sons play with the stereotypically girl toys they chose? Would the attempts to correct their sons’ choices be more or less overt during instances of free play time with their sons? Would the presence of both parents differently influence the children’s choices, and would the presence of mothers impact the ways in which fathers intervene or comment on their son’s choices? Future research should also consider interviewing children in pairs while conducting a similar toy-preference study (e.g., boy-boy vs. boy-girl), as this would allow for a greater understanding of the role of peers, and the ways in which the same and opposite gender differently influence boys’ gender-conforming or non-conforming choices.

Furthermore, while the fathers serve as an important social influence for their sons’ acquisition of gender stereotypical play, it is also worth considering how their influence may extend in similar or different ways for their daughters. Extending the current study to include young girls would additionally shed light on the similarities and/or differences in the choices girls make for both their own and the opposite gender, in the presence or absence of their fathers. Additionally, future research should consider exploring the role of mothers in children’s gender socialization, by examining both the mother-son and mother-daughter relationship. By delving deeper into the ways young girls and boys justify their choices in the presence of their mothers and fathers, a more complete picture of early childhood gender socialization can be acquired. Understanding the basis of children’s stereotypical and non-stereotypical beliefs and attitudes can help inform the creation of inclusive gender education programs and curriculums that promote acceptance and tolerance.

Notwithstanding the low sample size, the current findings also have critical implications for teachers and parents; given boys’ clear stereotypical definition of “girl toys”, it is imperative for both boys and girls to be exposed to more instances of cross-gender play. For teachers, this means encouraging children to play with the variety of toys available in the classroom. Although it is common for girls to congregate around the dress-up and toy kitchen areas of the room, boys should also be welcomed to play alongside their female peers. This can be achieved by including more gender-neutral items in these play areas (e.g., unisex costumes for both boys and girls) and increasing exposure and acceptance towards cross-gender play (e.g., reading books about boys who like to play with dolls). By offering children more opportunities to observed gender non-conformity in the classroom, they will learn that they can play with whichever toys they please, regardless of their gender. For parents, especially fathers, it is worth considering the implicit and explicit messages that they may be sending to their sons during instances of play. For instance, given the fact that boys only chose stereotypically boy or gender-neutral toys when asked to pick toys to play with their fathers, it is important for fathers to also engage in play with stereotypically girl toys. While their sons may continue and perhaps prefer to play with stereotypically boy toys with their fathers, solely being exposed to stereotypical boy play can have an important influence on their acceptance and willingness to interact in any form of cross-gender play. Understanding the basis of children’s stereotypical and non-stereotypical beliefs and attitudes can help inform the creation of inclusive gender education programs and curriculums that promote acceptance and tolerance.