Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40064661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, B. (2010). Gender, toys, and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 36, 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 61, 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.

    Article  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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 .

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, L. A., & Markham, W. T. (1985). Sex stereotyping in children’s toy advertisements. Sex Roles, 12, 157–170. doi:10.1007/BF00288044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

  • Taylor, C., Clifford, A., & Franklin, A. (2013). Color preferences are not universal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1015–1027. doi:10.1037/a0030273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA, 24450, USA

    Megan Fulcher

  2. Department of Psychology & Counseling, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX, USA

    Amy Roberson Hayes

Authors
  1. Megan Fulcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Roberson Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan Fulcher.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 2131 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fulcher, M., Hayes, A.R. Building a Pink Dinosaur: the Effects of Gendered Construction Toys on Girls’ and Boys’ Play. Sex Roles 79, 273–284 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0806-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0806-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation