An exploration into children’s play preferences and gender in early years settings.
Caitlyn Stafford
BA (Hons) Early Childhood Studies
Abstract
This research project aims to explore whether children (n=6) naturally gravitate towards toys that align with their gender. It was hypothesised that girls would prefer to play with feminine toys, and boys would prefer to play with masculine toys especially over cross-gender-typed toys. Action research was implemented to systematically investigate the question around gender differences in the early years. An array of qualitative research methods were utilised throughout this study to allow for a variety of data to be collected, specifically, autophotography, time-sampling and tracked observations. The findings from the research illustrate how children do appear to prefer gender-aligning toys over cross-gender-typed toys, however there is also a significant preference for gender-neutral toys when engaged in free play. This study aims to advance the understanding surrounding gender differences in play, and whether practitioners should be supporting children to diversify their play behaviours in order to eliminate developmental variations.
Introduction
England’s statutory framework the Early Years Foundation Stage (Department for Education, 2024), along with the Early Years Coalition (2021) supporting document, highlights the necessity of play within the early years of childhood development. There have been several studies exploring how gender differences influence toy preference in young children and the overwhelming consensus is that children typically choose to engage with toys that align with their gender (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Li & Wong, 2016; Todd et al., 2017a; Weisgram et al., 2014). Based on previous research, the study hypothesised that children would prefer to play with same-gender-typed toys as opposed to cross-gender-typed toys, however, gender-neutral toys were not accounted for due to the limited literature surrounding gender-neutral play as an avenue of interest for young children. Initial interest in gender differences arose from studying Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment. Altin and colleagues (2011) describe the experiment as investigating whether the gender of an adult role model affected children’s imitation of aggressive behaviour. As a result, this sparked an interest into whether these gender differences pertained to more areas of children’s behaviour, especially play preferences. Therefore, the research question motivating this study centres around investigating whether children naturally gravitate towards toys that align with their gender. According to Kilvington and Wood (2016), a feminist perspective on gender suggests that gender is a social construct which relies heavily on the upholding of gender stereotypes. Therefore, from a feminist standpoint it is apparent that children are more than their gender and that a child’s potential should not be reduced to a gender characteristic. The following section will delve into the literature surrounding gender differences in play, as well as exploring some of the differences that arose from the findings such as collaborative play and communication styles.
Literature Review
What is Gender?
There is a consensus in the literature that gender is a social construct that reflects a specific set of outcomes which are determined by the social structures that exist in the community, educational settings and most importantly, the home (Kane, 2013; Martin, 2011; McDowall-Clark, 2020). However, these social structures force children into the two, binary categories of gender: male and female, masculine and feminine. For instance, Kane (2013) describes how gender dictates children’s possibilities and challenges, the type of behaviour that is deemed appropriate, and the clothing that is seen as socially acceptable for girls and boys. Frances-White (2022) highlights how this is strongly reflected in children’s media, specifically Paw Patrol. The children’s show centred around a boy and his team of dogs saving the day tends to portray the only female character as timid, with characteristics such as having notably big eyelashes and a ‘lovable’ personality, in comparison to the male characters who are far more focused around their job type and the adventure at hand e.g. Marshall is a dog who’s a firefighter. McDowall-Clark (2020) argues that the rigid gender roles children are assigned, are only specific to a particular society and historical period. This highlights how crucial it is to recognise that gender is a gradually shifting concept, and even now gender is moving towards a multifaceted understanding as opposed to two fixed categories (Kane, 2013; McDowall-Clark, 2020).
Categorisation of Gender-typed Toys
Blakemore and Centers (2005) stress the important role that toys play in children’s development; however, they also claim that the social constraints associated with toys can hinder children’s opportunities. Furthermore, Cherney and Dempsey (2010) explore how children’s engagement with gendered toys may be viewed as a starting point for early socialization and cognitive development. Inspired by Miller (1987), Blakemore and Centers (2005) conducted two consecutive studies which allowed undergraduates to provide insight into the categorisation and characteristics of gender-specific toys. The first study identified 5 categories of toys: ‘strongly masculine, moderately masculine, neutral, moderately feminine and strongly feminine’ (Blakemore & Centers, 2005., p.619). These categories helped advise Blakemore and Centers (2005) on the criteria which most appropriately suited feminine, masculine and gender-neutral toys. Blakemore and Centers (2005) proposed that feminine toys were typically associated with physical attractiveness, nurturing, and domestic ability whereas masculine toys had connections to violence, competitiveness, excitement, and a degree of danger. In comparison, gender-neutral toys were found to be more intellectually stimulating, promoting the development of children’s diverse skills, varying from physical, cognitive to interpersonal and artistic (Blakemore and Centers, 2005). Similarly, Ramdaeni, Adrainy and Yulindrasari (2020) stated that children learn to construct gender through toys, with feminine toys being focused on promoting nurturance and domestic skill whereas masculine toys taught boys about strength through superhero and construction play.
Although Miller’s (1987) study is relatively outdated in comparison to the majority of the literature being discussed, it is important to recognise how Miller’s research has influenced future research. For example, Blakemore and Centers (2005) used Miller’s research as a model for their own study, incorporating it into their approach and toy selection. Miller (1987) discovered that there were significant differences across children’s toys when it came to considering the functionality and characteristics associated with individual toys. In order to make sure the functional categorisations chosen were both practical and easily comprehendible by participants, Miller conducted a pilot study consisting of 30 participants. Contrastingly, Blakemore and Centers (2005) opted not to include a pilot study in their own research, potentially being influenced by Miller’s previous research and being able to adopt their procedure and materials as a result.
‘Typical’ Gendered Play
Kane (2013) discusses how parents often perceive their children as inherently different, despite the lack of actual gender differences and as a result reinforce stereotypical behaviours within children (Martin, 2011). Similarly, Kollmayer and colleagues (2018) conducted a study focused on the desirability of children’s toys as dictated by parents. Firstly, Kollmayer et al. (2018, p.329) explore the idea that boys are more associated with more agentic qualities such as independence and decisiveness, whereas girls are more likely to show communal characteristics like being kind, empathetic and helpful. According to Kollmayer et al. (2018) parents often reinforce gender stereotypes though same-gender-typed toys, these then have the possibility to influence children’s future types of play due to it being the ‘norm’. Moreover, Ramdaeni et al. (2020) suggest that if children do not have access to a wide variety of cross-gendered, same-gendered and gender-neutral toys then it could result in children being denied opportunities to learn new skills and information (Kilvington and Wood, 2016). According to Weisgram et al. (2014) children typically engage in gendered play more so than in non-gendered play which as a result will lead to a more significant distinction in girls and boy’s developmental capabilities. Cherney and Dempsey (2010) and the Early Years Coalition (2021) emphasises the importance of early years practitioners recognising that gender-specific toys offer different opportunities for development, and therefore it may be disadvantageous for children if they are denied a variety of toys. Additionally, the Early Years Coalition (2021) highlights how stereotypical attitudes towards gender run the risk of limiting children’s potential, as they may believe they should be a certain type of person due solely to their gender even if it does not interest them. Similarly, Lauer and colleagues (2018) suggest that gender preferences in early childhood act an indicator for gender-typed play preferences as children mature; however, this highlights that choices made in early development may impact a child’s later life e.g. recognising that femininity can be linked to nurturance and stereotyping women as exclusively homemakers.
There have been several studies (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Davis & Hines, 2020; Li & Wong, 2016; Todd et al., 2017a; Weisgram et al., 2014) which found that boys were more likely to play with masculine toys and girls were more likely to play with feminine toys. However, Li and Wong (2016) also hypothesised that gender-neutral toys would be equally preferred by both genders. Li and Wong (2016) found that their hypotheses were correct in explaining the phenomena of gender-typed play patterns. Interestingly, Green and colleagues (2004, p.377) confirmed that boys tended to engage more in gender-typed play as well as being less susceptible to change in their play than girls, as the ‘counter-stereotypic stories’ that were read to the children in this study had a minimal impact on the boys play patterns. Arguably, the minimal impact on boys could be due to the reluctance to engage in feminine-typical play due to societal pressure to conform, which will be discussed further on (Kilvington & Wood, 2016). Contrastingly, Campbell et al. (2000) and Lauer et al. (2018) argue that both girls and boys prefer masculine activities in play, potentially due to the gross motor opportunities it offers in comparison to feminine and gender-neutral play. Additionally, Alexander and colleagues (2009) concluded from their visual preferences study that a preference for a certain type of toy may arise from the visual or physical factors of the toy as opposed to the gender characteristics associated. On the other hand, Todd et al. (2017b) found that when gender-neutral toys were an option for children to play with, that boys preferred to engage in gender-neutral play as opposed to masculine play whereas it prompted girls to engage more with masculine play.
Gender Segregation in Children’s Play
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, boys face a significant amount of pressure to conform to the typical masculine-play behaviours which Martin (2011, p.71) and Kilvington and Wood (2016) reiterates aggressive, dominant, risky, and more physical. Miller (1987), Weisgram et al. (2014) and Kilvington and Wood (2016) all propose that it is seen as far less acceptable for boys to engage in feminine play than for girls to engage in masculine play. For example, Martin (2011) illustrates that gender borders are prominent in childhood, where children’s behaviour is regulated by their peers if they engage in cross-gendered-play which only reinforces gender-stereotypes. Ramdaeni et al. (2020) and Kilvington and Wood (2016) elaborate on this point by explaining how there is little access to feminine play spaces for boys whereas girls have access, while be it limited to masculine play spaces.
Collaborative Play
Kane (2013) discuss the potential correlation between children of different genders and the level of engagement from their mothers. For example, Kane (2013) explains how girls typically received a higher level of direct, communicative interaction whereas boys tend to receive overall less interaction but more instructional language. Kane (2013) therefore suggests that these communication styles influence children’s capability to develop interpersonal and problem-solving skills but more significantly, their communication abilities. In comparison, Littleton and Howe (2010) explore peer collaboration and how this may reflect how children perceive adult interactions with both other adults and children. Gendered conversation styles may become more established as children choose to play with those of the same gender, this therefore reinforces these styles (Littleton and Howe, 2010). Steenbeek et al. (2014) and Neppl and Murray (1997) explore this idea further, stating that contact episodes featuring girls are substantially longer than boys, especially when the collaboration features a girl-girl pairing as opposed to a pairing containing a boy.
Conclusion
Miller (1987) concluded that children’s toys are significantly different with respect to gender, especially considering that 41 out of the 50 toys used in the study were identified as specifically appropriate for boys and girls. Furthermore, Blakemore and Centers (2005) highlight how gendered toys greatly affect children’s development, this therefore emphasises the necessity of research surrounding gender-typed toys in order to challenge future stereotypes and differences in ability. Numerous studies appear to suggest that children significantly prefer to play with toys that align with their own gender (Blakemore and Centers, 2005; Cherney and Dempsey, 2010; Neppl and Murray, 1997; Todd et al., 2017a; Weisgram et al., 2014). Kilvington and Wood (2016) concluded that play involving a group of girls features considerably more collaboration than boy focused groups.
Methodology
This research study was conducted in a pack-away, committee-run pre-school setting which consisted of fifteen or less children in ratio, or in attendance, every day. The setting prides themselves on harbouring a nurturing, home-from-home environment, with a large number of families socialising outside of the pre-school which arguably strengthened the friendships of the children. The age of participants ranged from 3-5-years-old and were purposively sampled for this research project (see 3.0). The primary purpose of this research study was to investigate if children naturally gravitated towards toys aligning with their gender, with the secondary aim of providing the setting with information on children’s play behaviours and how this can affect children’s opportunities. Purposive sampling was chosen as the most appropriate approach to selecting participants; specifically critical case sampling where participants are chosen to test the research question to ensure that pre-school aged children’s behaviour could be investigated (Arthur et al., 2012). In this research study, an equal number of boys and girls (6 total) were chosen who were all above the age of 3.
Ethical considerations
It was pertinent that the research study was conducted ethically, especially as it involved working with children who are considered vulnerable participants (Bishop Grosseteste University, 2022). One of the most pivotal considerations to conducting ethical research is guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity to those participating. This has been addressed through the use of pseudonyms (Arthur et al., 2012; Greene & Hogan, 2005; Jarvis et al., 2012) and omission of any identifiable characteristics or features. Furthermore, as the first cycle of data collection centred around taking photographs, it was vital that consent was obtained from the manager of the pre-school to use an iPad to obtain photographs within the setting. Farrell (2005) states that gaining informed consent for children can be difficult, therefore it involved acquiring written consent from guardians as well as verbal consent from children in the moment. However, when researching with children it is pivotal to also consider their non-verbal communication such as body language, as they may not feel comfortable in speaking up due to the power imbalance between researcher and participant (Harcourt et al., 2011). Consequently, throughout each observation it was crucial that close attention was paid to the children’s body language, facial expressions and to personality changes and if the child seemed reluctant through these means the observation would have been stopped (Harcourt et al., 2011). Prior to commencement of the study, ethical approval was sought and obtained through submission of a research ethics clearance form in accordance with the Bishop University research ethics policy (2022).
Action research
Norton (2018) defines action research as the process of identifying a practical problem, in this case within early years, and systematically planning a series of cycles in order to research the particular problem. Furthermore, Norton (2018) explains that the primary aim of pedagogical action research is to improve a practitioner’s practice or alter their ideology (Atkins & Wallace, 2012). Newman (2000) and Norton (2018) suggest that the cyclical structure of action research allows for data analysis and reflection after each stage, which then helps in informing the next stage of research. Norton (2018) explains how pedagogical action research typically encompasses a qualitative, interpretivist approach due to the process of identifying human beings’ opinions as opposed to factual evidence. Therefore, the most appropriate paradigm for this research project is an interpretivist approach, due to the objective of being able to comprehend the children’s behaviour and perspective on the world (Arthur et al., 2012). However, conducting action research proved challenging at times due to the absence of children delaying the initial cycles of data collection and therefore, preventing the development of the next stage.
Cycle 1
In the initial cycle, autophotography was selected due to the ability to have children’s perspective and opinions communicated effectively (Glaw et al., 2017). Autophotography is an ethnographic, visual research method that consists of allowing children to photograph their environment, and then using the ‘photographs as evidence’ (Glaw et al., 2017., p.1). Autophotography as a research method, is inspired by the mosaic approach which encompasses an ‘active and inclusive’ conceptualisation of the child, in order to aid in constructing the child’s perception of the world (Clark & Moss, 2017). During this cycle, children were asked to take a photograph of their favourite toy within the room, and they were asked to perform this task twice. This resulted in 12 photographs in total, 2 from each child. According to Glaw et al. (2017) autophotography is an effective data collection method as it illustrates information that cannot always be conveyed through verbal communication, this is especially the case for the 3-5 year old children involved with this research, as they may have struggled to articulate themselves confidently. However, Clark and Moss (2017) argue that interpretation is a pivotal aspect of the mosaic approach, yet also explore how the variety of perspectives can hinder the reliability of the research. Hence the children were given the opportunity to provide a reason behind choosing a particular toy in order to offer more context (Atkins & Wallace, 2012). Initially, cycle 1’s aim was to help inform which toys would be chosen to be set out during cycle 2. Nevertheless, it was determined that having the staff members set up the room each morning would be more objective and ensure that I have no influence over what toys are set out. Additionally, this cycle being first ensures that there is no bias from the children, as they will not be able to assume that being asked about their favourite toy links to gender stereotypes.
Cycle 2
Time-sampling observations were chosen to be conducted during the second cycle where children’s play preferences were recorded. Todd et al. (2017a) noted that time-sampling observations are a common research method when conducting research focused on children’s preferences, as it allows behaviour to be recorded over a period of time and enables patterns to be highlighted. Jarvis and others (2012) illustrate that time sampling observations are where one particular child’s behaviour is recorded, in this case, every 5 minutes for thirty minutes. According, to Weisgram et al. (2014, p.382) observations limited to a ‘single time period’ may be inaccurate due to behaviour changing throughout the school day. Similarly, Mann and colleagues (1991) highlight that time-sampling observations can sometimes result in an overestimation of behaviour. However, as children’s play behaviours were observed on multiple occasions (n=111); varying in location and time of day, the probability for overestimation was significantly reduced, resulting in more credible findings. Conducting naturalistic, time-sampling observations allowed for children’s natural play patterns and curiosity to be examined in one of their normal environments (Arthur et al., 2012; Greene & Hogan, 2005). Arthur et al. (2012) explores the idea of a reactive observer, emphasising the need for researchers to familiarise themselves with the children and explain the process of the observations, whilst also recognising that there might be specific circumstances when it is necessary to intervene. The observations were analysed with respect to what type of play was engaged in more frequently for each gender.
Cycle 3
Similarly, in the final cycle, a combination of time-sampling and tracking observations were undertaken. These observations consisted of observing two stereotypical activities simultaneously, whilst ensuring only to record behaviours for those who had consented to being observed (Jarvis et al., 2012). In order to ensure there were no confounding, external factors affecting the children’s activity choice, two tuff-trays were constructed with similar themes in mind, e.g. a car wash and a baby washing activity (see Image 1 & 2), (Greig et al., 2012). The decision was made to exclusively conduct a feminine and masculine activity due to the rise in preference for gender-neutral toys during the second cycle, this enabled for a more objective final cycle and ensured that the children had to choose between stereotypical toys. Jarvis et al. (2012) states that tracking observations are especially effective in indicating a pattern of differences in children’s play, for instance gender differences. A primary limitation of this cycle was having to record observations on two activities at once as this reduced the accuracy of the recordings. In hindsight, it could have been beneficial to gain consent for all the children who were in on particular days, then the activities could have been recorded to ensure no crucial details were missed (Greene & Hogan, 2005).
Image 1: Feminine Tray
Image 2: Masculine Tray
Findings and Discussion
Cycle 1 – Children’s Perspective
During the autophotography stage, the children’s photographs were classified into feminine, masculine and gender-neutral categories. This highlighted whether the children’s favourite toys aligned with their gender in accordance with the literature which suggests similar findings (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Davis & Hines, 2020; Li & Wong, 2016; Todd et al., 2017a; Weisgram et al., 2014). The categorisation of children’s toys was implemented using research from Blakemore and Centers (2005), Davis and Hines (2020) and Miller (1987), in order to offer suggestions as to what characteristics of toys associated with one gender as opposed to another (Kollmayer et al., 2018). The analysis found that when asked directly about their favourite toy in the setting, girls preferred feminine toys and similarly, boys favoured masculine toys. However, whilst neither gender chose cross-gendered toys as their favourites, there was a small preference for gender-neutral toys across both girls and boys. These findings surrounding toy preference aligning with the children’s gender reaffirms previous research, whilst also supporting the initial hypothesis that children would have an overwhelming preference for toys oriented towards their own gender. These findings contrast those of Campbell et al. (2000), Alexander et al. (2009) and Lauer et al. (2018), who suggested that both genders naturally gravitate towards masculine toys due to the opportunities to develop a wider range of more appealing skills e.g. motor skills. However, an unexpected finding arose surrounding the children’s justifications of toy choice, as the boys tended to use more simplistic phrases compared to the girls who developed their reasoning (Figure 1). For example, Girl 1 chose 2 Paw Patrol figures as one of her favourite toys and stated that she enjoyed ‘solving missions and mysteries’ as opposed to simply stating a fondness for the toy. Frances-White (2022) emphasises how Paw Patrol can be viewed as a controversial interest, due to the stereotyping forced upon children who liked the show; for instance, girls’ clothing largely represented the female character Skye as opposed to any of the 6 male main characters. Littleton and Howe (2010) explore how children develop varying conversational styles and therefore, different language patterns that can be observed again in Figure 1. Littleton and Howe (2020) suggested that girls use more emotive and social language whereas boys use more assertive speech, this could explain why the girls in this research tended to give more detailed explanations as they used more expressive language. On the other hand, Kane (2013) argues that children’s communication styles develop differently due to a correlation between maternal interaction, specifically the content of the interactions. In particular, girls tended to receive higher levels of direct, expressive interactions in comparison to boys who received less engagement, yet more instructive or informative exchanges (Kane, 2013).
Table 1 – Preferred Toy and Reasonings
| Toy Photographed. | Reasoning. | Toy Photographed. | Reasoning. | |
| Boy 1 | Cow figures | “I love them” | Tyre | “I just love it” |
| Boy 2 | Vehicles | “Cos, I like monster trucks” | Thomas the tank engine train | “I love Thomas” |
| Boy 3 | BBQ | “It’s so cool” | First aid box | “I like all the doctor’s stuff” |
| Girl 1 | Pop It | “I can make blue fingers with it” | Paw Patrol figures (Skye and Marshall) | “I like solving missions and mysteries” |
| Girl 2 | Slide | “It’s very fun to play on” | Water in Baby Washing Tuff Tray | “Because it makes a mess” |
| Girl 3 | Elsa Doll | “I love her to sing with me” | Dolls | “I like Elsa” |
One of the challenges encountered during this cycle was that the setting was a committee-run, pack-away organisation, which meant that the variety of toys available to the children was rather restricted due to a limited amount of storage space and funding. The setting ensured they promoted children’s development through planned activities and topics, however there was a tendency for toys to be repeated throughout the week. Arguably, as there were more boys in ratio to girls on an average day, there was often more masculine or gender-neutral toys on offer to the children such as vehicles, construction and messy play. This suggested that despite there being a greater availability of masculine toys, girls still tended to prefer feminine-based ones alongside gender-neutral toys. However, this argument only became apparent when categorising the toys and is far less obvious when gender association is not being examined. It may be that the challenges surrounding toy choice had an impact on the children’s favourite toy selection, as they may be more familiar with some toys over others. However, Kollmayer et al. (2018) found that parents prefer their children to engage with same-gender-typed and gender-neutral toys which could explain the proportion of gender-neutral toys within the setting as they are more likely to appeal to both genders. The findings suggest that when children are given the autonomy to choose their favourite toy, they will naturally gravitate towards toys which align with their gender. In hindsight, it could have been more effective to implement a cycle similar to Kollmayer et al. (2018) study, which focused on gathering the parents’ perceptions on gender association with specific toys through questionnaires, as this then could have been used to help categorise the toys as opposed to relying strictly on previous research (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Davis & Hines, 2020; Miller, 1987).
Cycle 2 – Rise of gender-neutral toys
Interestingly, during the time-sampling observations it emerged that both boys and girls engaged with gender-neutral toys more than feminine and masculine toys on average when involved in free-play (see Figure 2). However, masculine toys closely followed gender-neutral toys for boys and similarly, feminine toys followed gender-neutral toys for girls. There is scarce literature surrounding young children having a preference for gender-neutral toys and play. However, Li and Wong (2016) hypothesised that both genders would be equally interested in gender-neutral toys, which is reflected through gender-neutral play being the primary play-type engaged in for girls and boys throughout this cycle. Despite this, Todd et al. (2017b) observed that the inclusion of gender-neutral toys impacted both genders differently, with boys engaging with them more than male-typed toys when included as an option, and girls choosing to play with male-typed toys over gender-neutral toys. The gender-neutral toys that acquired the most play across both genders throughout this study, consisted of physical play such as a slide, arts and crafts and roleplaying as Doctors (Blakemore & Centers, 2005).
Table 2 – Toy type by observation interval.
| Toy Type | Feminine | Masculine | Gender-Neutral |
| Girls (Out of 41 intervals) | 14 | 8 | 19 |
| Boys (Out of 70 intervals) | 8 | 30 | 32 |
Gender categorisation was analysed through examining each 5-minute interval within each 30-minute observation and identifying the primary toy or area being played with, then deciding whether it was more feminine, masculine or gender neutral. Similar to the first cycle, this process involved using Blakemore and Centers (2005), Miller (1987) and Davis & Hines (2020) characteristics of toys to base the classifications of toys upon. Subsequently, it is important to note that whilst categorising the toys into the three play type categories (feminine, masculine and gender-neutral), some toys such as the BBQ (See Image 3) that the wider gender socialisation of the toy and how it was being utilised was taken into consideration. To illustrate, it could be suggested that children chose certain toys based upon how their parents behave at home, for example, girls may choose to play with babies because they have observed their mother taking care of siblings and boys may choose to play with the BBQ because it is a job that they have seen their father do (Littleton and Howe, 2010). On the other hand, children may choose to engage with specific toys as a result of moving around the room in particular friendship groups due to the home-from-home nature of the setting. It became apparent throughout the observations that children’s friendship groups within the setting were significantly mixed, although both genders tended to have more intimate, paired relationships with those of the same gender (Kilvington & Wood, 2016). However, as explored in 4.1, Kollmayer et al. (2018) highlighted the parental desire surrounding gender-neutral play which could highlight the overwhelming preference for gender-neutral play throughout this cycle as children are accustomed to these toys in the home. Cherney and Dempsey (2010) suggest that engagement with gender-neutral toys reduces the chance of gender stereotypes and prejudices developing from play in early childhood.
Image 3 – BBQ Toy
Both girls’ and boys’ involvement levels remained at a moderate level regardless of the type of play they were engaged in, for example, girls engaging with feminine toys harnessed the same level of involvement as when masculine toys were being played with. Therefore, the findings contrast Cherney and Dempsey (2010) research surrounding play complexity, as it was suggested that feminine play would retain the highest level of complexity for both girls and boys. However, Cherney and Dempsey (2010) also concluded that boys displayed an overall reduced play complexity in comparison to girls which also conflicts with how the children engaged throughout this study. It could be argued that the children’s engagement levels relied more upon their play behaviour in this study due to engagement levels remaining moderate throughout the three gendered play types which contrasts Cherney and Dempsey’s suggestion that play complexity may relate more to the toy itself rather than how the child chooses to interact with it.
Consistent with the literature (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Davis & Hines, 2020; Li & Wong, 2016; Todd et al., 2017a; Weisgram et al., 2014), this cycle does contribute to the idea that children naturally gravitate towards toys and play that aligns with their gender before cross-gender-typed toys, however, there is an increased preference for gender-neutral toys arising when considering play behavioural patterns as opposed to the more interpretive, visual method of autophotography.
Weisgram et al. (2014) and Green et al. (2004) recommended to gather as many observations as possible to ensure children’s play behaviour is more widely reflected upon, the aim was to gather 4 observations on each child engaged in free play. However, as a result of unforeseen absences and activities being commenced mid observation, the number of observations obtained were lower than anticipated with 70 intervals for boys compared to 41 for girls out of a potential 96 intervals for each gender. Arguably, a larger sample size of participants could have mitigated this problem due to the ability to conduct a wider spread of observations over the period of the placement, and in turn contributing to more data being collected which would have aided the research’s reliability.
Cycle 3 – Targeted ‘Gender-Appropriate’ Play
As mentioned in the literature review (see 2.4), there is significantly more pressure on boys to conform to the societal pressures of gender stereotypes than girls within educational settings (Kilvington and Wood, 2016; Miller, 1987; Ramdaeni et al., 2020; Weisgram et al., 2014). Previous literature such as Martin (2011) and Kilvington and Wood (2016) explore the stereotypical associations surrounding masculine play, such as encompassing an aggressive, dominant nature to their play whilst engaging with more physical, risky play behaviours e.g. superhero play. Furthermore, Martin (2011) argues that boys frequently have to work harder in order to be accepted into male friendships groups and associating with feminine traits or toys may hinder this process, and result in criticism from peers for opposing societal norms. Therefore, patriarchal structures such as these reinforce gender-stereotypes as young boys learn to observe behaviour to understand what is socially acceptable and reject femininity as it could become associated with negative social consequences (Martin, 2011). In order to identify whether children would naturally gravitate towards feminine or masculine play, two tuff-tray activities were set up containing stereotypical toys (see 3.4). The most significant finding to emerge from this cycle was that the masculine activity had more interactions from boys, and the feminine tray had more girl interactions. Therefore, it can be suggested that the hypothesis of Blakemore and Centers (2005), Li and Wong (2016), Todd et al. (2017a) and Weisgram et al. (2014) are confirmed due to children preferring play that aligns with their own gender over cross-gender-typed play. Although, it is important to note that the feminine activity had 37 interactions over the 2 thirty-minute observations as opposed to 18 interactions with the masculine activity. However, as discussed during 4.1, there tended to be more boys in ratio than girls and accordingly, this impacted the type of toys that were arranged daily. Thus, the interest in the feminine activity may have been caused by the desirability for feminine play.
In contrast to the previous cycles’ findings, the feminine tray attracted a much higher engagement level than the masculine tray due to the amount of time the children stayed focused on the activity. For example, the first observation saw boys flitting in and out of the masculine tray, playing with it for twenty-minutes at most in comparison to the feminine tray which saw the girls engaged for the entire forty-minute observation. It became apparent after the first observation that boys were more likely to cross the gender boundaries and play with the feminine tray than vice versa. This finding is contrary to that of Miller (1987), Weisgram et al. (2014) and Ramdaeni et al. (2020) who suggested it is generally less acceptable in society for boys to take pleasure in feminine associations and spaces. An unanticipated finding that arose whilst observing the two activities was the collaborative nature of the feminine tray as opposed to the masculine tray. Boys playing with the masculine tray were involved in their own play, primarily talking to themselves, and only rarely engaging with one another. According to Kilvington and Wood (2016), boys have two common responses to engaging in play within a small group: either choosing to focus on their own thing or attempting to dominate the group dynamics and play style. Evidently, boys chose to concentrate on their own pretend play throughout the observation, sending the cars through a car wash and describing how they needed to be cleaned. Conversely, throughout the duration of the observation the girls chose to collaborate in their pretend play, explaining how their respective babies required cleaning and providing each other with a variety of direction to further play. The feminine tray behaviour was significantly consistent with Kilvington and Wood (2016), Steenbeek et al. (2014) and Neppl and Murray (1997) suggestions that when engaging in play in girls tended to be much more amicable, and typically engage in far more co-operative play as opposed to parallel play.
A significant limitation of this cycle in particular was the necessity of multi-tasking when simultaneously observing the two activities. However, to ensure credibility, it was crucial to record the observations at the same time to identify where the children naturally gravitated to first. Therefore, it was decided that the most efficient way to record multiple children’s observations simultaneously, would be to type records for the masculine tray and handwrite the feminine-based tray observations. Despite the promising results, it would have been more effective to have gained consent to record the children in on a specific day, therefore, allowing children’s speech and behaviour to be recorded to ensure no fundamental details were missed (see 3.4). Arguably, using a larger sample size would have improved the validity and generalisability of the research findings and therefore, implementing these cycles in a larger setting in the future may provide more reliable findings overall (Arthur et al., 2012).
Conclusion
Evidently, toys are typically significantly more gendered towards one gender over the other (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Miller, 1987; Weisgram et al., 2014). Therefore, on the question of do children naturally gravitate towards play that aligns with their gender, this study found that children do tend to prefer same-gender-typed play as opposed to cross-gender-typed play. However, when engaged in free-play, children tend to turn their focus to more gender-neutral toys, potentially in order to affiliate with their mixed friendship groups more easily. Practitioners cannot assume, therefore, that gender-aligning toys will provide children with the most enriching opportunities in play or even ensure they are having the most fun (Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Ramdaeni et al., 2020; Weisgram et al., 2014). Owen (2021), McDowall-Clark (2020) suggest that there is still progress to be made in regards to gender and specifically the socialisation of young children in the early years. Moreover, McDowall-Clark (2020) explains that the categorisations of gender, whilst currently 2 binary categories, is only deemed appropriate and relevant for a specific time period, and characteristics we associated with femininity and masculinity has and will continue to evolve.
The necessity of this research lies in the consequences children face from early gender socialisation, and, as highlighted in numerous studies, the impact gender-specific toys can have on children’s development, especially when considering the acquisition of certain skills like speech or the long-term effect on future aspirations as a result of stereotyped play (Blakemore & Centers, 2005; Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Early Years Coalition, 2021; Kollmayer et al., 2018; Lauer et al., 2018; Ramdaeni et al., 2020; Weisgram et al., 2014). Furthermore, Green et al. (2004) suggest that boys may require more encouragement to diversify their play due to being less susceptible to change in their gender-typed toy play and therefore, highlighting an inflexibility around gendered play.
Arguably, the rise of gender-neutral toys as the primary preference during the second cycle is a key aspect of this research that would benefit from further investigation. As a practitioner, exploring this preference on a larger-scale would enhance the reliability of the relationship between children and gender-neutral toys. Furthermore, Blakemore and Centers (2005) suggestions that gender-neutral toys typically involve developing children’s cognitive, physical and artistic skills, the correlation between gender-neutral characteristics and children’s preference could be explored further to examine the desirability of these toys, therefore, helping to eliminate some of the previously spoken about discrepancies in girls’ and boys’ opportunities and development (Cherney & Dempsey, 2010; Ramdaeni et al., 2020; Weisgram et al., 2014).
References
Alexander, G. M., Wilcox, T., & Woods, R. (2009) Sex differences in Infants’ Visual Interest in Toys. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 38(3), 427-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9430-1
Altin, D., Jablonski, J., Lyke, J., & Spinella, M. (2011). Modern Psychological Studies Gender difference in perceiving aggression using the Bobo doll studies Recommended Citation. 16.
Atkins, L., & Wallace, S. (2012). Qualitative research in education. SAGE Publications, Limited.
Arthur, J., Waring, M., & Coe, R. (Eds.) (2012) Research methods and methodologies in education. SAGE Publications.
Bishop Grosseteste University (2022). Research Ethics Policy.
Blakemore, J.E.O., Centers, (2005) R.E. Characteristics of Boys’ and Girls’ Toys. Sex Roles 53, 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7729-0
Campbell, A., Shirely, L., Heywood, C., & Crook, C. (2000). Infants’ visual preference for sex-congruent babies, children, toys and activities: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151000165814
Cherney, I. D., & Dempsey, J. (2010). Young children’s classification stereotyping and play behaviour for gender neutral and ambiguous toys. Educational Psychology, 30, 651-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.498416
Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2017) Listening to young children: a guide to understanding and using the Mosaic approach (expanded 3rd edition). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Daivs, J. T. M., & Hines, M. (2020) How large are gender differences in toy preferences? A systematic review and meta-analysis of toy preference research. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 49(2), 373-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7
Department for Education (2024) Early Years Education Stage Statutory Framework for Group and school-based Providers Setting the Standards for learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. In Gov.uk. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65aa5e42ed27ca001327b2c7/EYFS_statutory_framework_for_group_and_school_based_providers.pdf
Early Years Coalition (2021) Birth to 5 Matters: Non-statutory Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage. https://birthto5matters.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Birthto5Matters-download.pdf
Farrell, A. (2005). Ethical research with children. Open University Press.
Frances-White, D. (2022, February 21) We’ll never have gender equality while Paw Patrol is around. New Statesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/02/well-never-have-gender-equality-while-paw-patrol-is-around#:~:text=It%20features%20a%20boy%20and,coy%20girl%20cockapoo%20called%20Skye.
Glaw, X., Inder, K., Kable, A., & Hazelton, M. (2017). Visual methodologies in qualitative research: Autophotography and photo elicitation applied to mental health research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 160940691774821.
Green, V. A., Bigler, R., & Catherwood, D. (2004). The Variability and Flexibility of Gender-Typed Toy Play: A Close Look at Children’s Behavioural Responses to Counterstereotypic Models. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 51(7-8), 371-386. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000049227.05170.aa
Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (Eds.) (2005) Researching children’s experiences: Approaches and methods. SAGE Publications, Limited.
Greig, A. D., Taylor, J., & MacKay, T. (2012) Doing Research with Children. SAGE.
Harcourt, D., Perry, B., & Waller, T. (Eds.) (2011) Researching Young Children’s Perspectives: Debating the ethics and dilemmas of educational research with children (1st ed.) Routledge.
Jarvis, P., George, J., Hollan, W., & Newman, S. (2012) Research in the early years: A step-by-step guide. Taylor & Francis Group.
Kane, E. W. (2013). Rethinking gender and sexuality in childhood. Bloomsbury Academic.
Kilvington, J., & Wood, A. (2016). Gender, Sex and Children’s Play. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kollmayer, M., Schultes, M.-T., Schober, B., Hodosi, T., & Spiel, C. (2018). Parents’ judgments about the desirability of toys for their children: associations with gender role attitudes, gender-typing of toys, and demographics. Sex Roles : A Journal of Research, 79(5-6), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0882-4
Lauer, J. E., Ilksoy, S. D., & Lourenco, S. F. (2018) Developmental stability in gender-typed preferences between infancy and preschool age. Developmental Psychology, 54(4), 613-620. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000468
Li, R. Y. H., & Wong, W. I. (2016). Gender-typed play and social abilities in boys ang girls: are they related? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 74(9-10), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0580-7
Littleton, K., & Howe, C. (2010) Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction. In Google Books. Routledge.
Owen, K. (Ed.). (2021). Play in the early years. SAGE Publications.
Mann, J., Have, T. T., Plunkett, J. W., & Meisels, S. J. (1991). Time Sampling: A methodological critique. Child Development, 62(2), 227-241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130999
Martin, B. (2011). Children at play : learning gender in the early years. Trentham Books.
McDowall-Clark, R. (2020) Childhood in society for the early years (4th ed). Learning Matters.
Miller, C. L. (1987). Qualitative Differences Among Gender-Stereotyped Toys: Implications for Cognitive and Social Development in Girls and Boys. Sex Roles, 16(9-10), 463-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00292482
Neppl, T. K., & Murray, A. D. (1997). Social dominance and play patterns among preschoolers: Gender comparisons. Sex Roles, 36 (5-6), 381-393.
Newman, J. M. (2000) Action Research: A brief overview. Forum Qualitative sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.1.1127
Norton, L. (2018) Action Research in Teaching and Learning: A Practical Guide to Conducting Pedagogical Research in Universities (2nd ed.) Routledge.
Ramdaeni, S., Adriany, V., & Yulindrasari, H. (2020). Gender and Toys in Early Childhood Education. Proceedings of the International Conference on Early Childhood Education and Parenting 2019 (ECEP 2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200808.049
Steenbeek, H., Aalsvoort, D., & Geert, P. (2014) Collaborative play in young children as complex dynamic system: revealing gender related differences. PubMed, 18(3), 251-276.
Todd, B. K., Barry, J. A., & O. Thommessen, S. A. (2017a). Preferences for ‘Gender-typed’ Toys in Boys and Girls Aged 9 to 32 Months. Infant and Child Development, 26(3), e1986. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1986
Todd, B. K., Fischer, R. A., Di Costa, S., Roestorf, A., Harbour, K., Hardiman, P., & Barry, J. A. (2017b) Sex differences in children’s toy preferences: A systematic review, meta-regression, and meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 27(2), e2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064
Weisgram, E. S., Fulcher, M., & Dinella, L, M. (2014) Pink gives girls permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-typed colours on preschool children’s toy preferences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 401-409.
