Pretty in Pink?: Children's Use of Gender Inferences in Predicting Others' Toy Preferences

CONFLICTING GENDER CUES & POTENTIAL JUDGEMENT |1
Pretty in Pink?: Children’s Use of Gender

Inferences in Predicting others’ Toy
Preferences
Word Count: 6,037
STEPHAN AMARANATH
© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Abstract
Theoretical background by Martin and Halverson (1981) and Bem (1981) demonstrate
stereotypes are not irrational ways of thinking. As children get older they become flexible in
their rational thinking about stereotypes. Current study tested how children use gender-related
inferences to predict toy preferences and whether these preferences were driven by
stereotyped-toys or colour. Seventy-two children (4-9 years) were presented with boy and girl
characters with stereotypical and counter-stereotypical interests. Children rated how much
these characters would like a selection of pink and blue ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ toys.
Younger children ignored character interests and based predictions primarily on sex. Older
children integrated available information (i.e. interests) to make appropriate judgements.
Results may be due to different processing abilities.
Keywords: Gender schema, toys, masculine, feminine, stereotypes, counter-

stereotypes, pink, blue.

Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Professor Robin Banerjee for offering guidance and support
throughout the project. A project looking at gender stereotypes and colours was the initial
idea; after further research and assistance with experiment design from Professor Robin
Banerjee the project was set to investigate conflicting gender cues and judgement. Data was
collected independently at a local school in London. Thanks to Mrs K. Shilling (deputy
headteacher) for allowing the data collection to take place. Professor Robin Banerjee offered
further assistance regarding statistical analysis.

“Pink is a girl’s colour, boys’ can’t like pink…” – Participant #9, March 1, 2012
Introduction
Children tend to emulate same sex models and are likely to follow sex appropriate
activities because they understand that this is what a child of the same sex would usually do;
‘self-socialisation’, a process defined by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974). Kohlberg’s (1966)
cognitive-developmental approach suggests a constant gender identity must come first before
the development of gender-role behaviour. According to Kohlberg, children do not learn to
behave in gender appropriate ways until they are about 6 or 7 years of age. Conservation
skills become evident in children at this age and it is at this age children attain gender
constancy. Only when children achieve gender constancy, the development of gender roles
begin; they constantly think themselves as male or female and start to model behaviour of
individuals of their own sex. Kohlberg believed children need a mature understanding of
gender, before the development of gender-role behaviour, however research associated with
gender schema suggests children at the age of 3-4 begin to collect information about gender-
appropriate stereotypes almost immediately they are aware of gender identity.
Gender schemas are generalisations that categorise gender knowledge into

expectations on how males and females should behave appropriately. The concept of gender
schemas were first introduced by Martin and Halverson (1981) and Bem (1981). Martin and
Halverson (1981) proposed that after children are aware of gender identity (around the age of
3), they look to their environment for information to develop their gender schema while
Kohlberg believed gender constancy must be attained before this can happen. Martin (1989)
suggested as children are aware of their basic gender identity they develop in-group (own sex)
and out-group schemas. After developing these schemas children can focus on learning
activities which are appropriate to their gender and display out-group discrimination and in-
group favouritism. Bem (1981) proposed it might be useful to use the terms ‘gender
schematic’ and ‘gender non-schematic’ instead of in-group and out-group. Gender schematic
is when children distinguish and encode information about others and themselves to reflect
current stereotypes – this involves sorting characteristics and behaviours into masculine and
feminine classifications, leading to stereotyped gender-role behaviours. Children who are
gender non-schematic develop an androgynous gender schema and may behave in a way that
represents both masculine and feminine characteristics.

The theoretical background introduced by Martin (1989); Martin and Halverson (1981)
and Bem (1981) demonstrates that stereotypes are not irrational ways of thinking but a key
role in abridging a complex world. Care is needed, nonetheless to avoid an over-dependence
on gender stereotypes; a need to change beliefs, behaviours and expectations when presented
with counter-stereotypical information. The gender schema approach helps explain why
children follow stereotypes more firmly than others’. Several studies have demonstrated that
7-9 year olds have more flexible stereotypes than to younger children (i.e. Carter & Patterson,
1982) and according to Martin (1989) as they get older, they stereotype males and females in
more areas (i.e. behaviour traits) and in turn their insight into the dissimilarities between
males and females may increase. Research (Martin, 1989) does illustrate as children get older
they do become flexible in their rational thinking about gender.
Children and adults use different categories of gender-related inferences when making
decisions. Children rely more on the basis of sex than on gender-related inferences (Berndt &
Heller, 1986) in contrast to adults who rely on relevant gender-related information (Rasinski,
Crocker & Hastie, 1985). Children’s judgements do reflect categorical thinking; ignoring
appropriate information that differentiates individuals’ of a gender group. Younger children
might depend on the basis of sex in decision making because it is more prominent than
gender-related inferences (i.e. interests). Cann & Newbern (1984) found young children
misrepresent and forget the irregularities when given gender-related information that does not
fit their beliefs. As children get older, they do consider gender-related information when
making judgements. Martin (1989) asked children to predict how much particular characters
in a story would like masculine and feminine toys and found that the younger children (3-5
year olds) relied on only the gender of the character and ignored interests to make their
predictions; they predicted that the boy character would play with masculine toys (i.e. trucks)
regardless of the information presented about the character’s characteristics/interests. Older
children (6-10 year olds) took into account both character gender and characteristics/interests;
they predicted that the girl character, described having counter-stereotypical qualities would
less likely play with stereotypically feminine toys. This flexibility is possibly due to changes
in the child’s cognition; developing a greater understanding of masculinity and femininity as
distinctive characteristics from gender (males/females) and an improved ability to integrate
several information sources (i.e. interests) instantaneously to make judgements (Gnepp &
Gould, 1985). Younger children simply rely on characters gender (naive gender schema) and

link certain activities appropriate for boys and activities appropriate for girls (Ding &
Littleton, 2005).
Children use colours to discriminate between objects and use colours in their
everyday judgments. Eysenck (1941; as cited in Vandewiele, D'Hondt, Didillon, Iwawake,
Mwamwenda, 1986) found regardless of gender, a preference for the colour blue in children.
Children may form colour preferences due to environmental cues related to their sex (filling
out their in-group/out-group schema). Children use clothing colour as a sex defining
mechanism before they are aware of gender identity. Sexual opinions of colour preference is
present in everyday life, the common adage “pink is for girls, blue is for boys” defines a
evident and prevalent characteristic in American culture (Picariello, Greenberg & Pillemer,
1990). The sex of a new-born child cannot usually be determined from physical appearance
but by colours of their clothing. Cunningham and Macrae (2011) examined the modern
cultural connection between colour and sex by exploring the colours of children’s products in
leading catalogues and found children’s products were dominated by gender-stereotyped
colours (i.e. pink toys in the girls section) establishing the reality of a colour-gender
association in the childhood environment (children may develop a preference for certain
colours based on familiarity) however developmental research on this topic is particularly
absent.
Children (irrespective of gender) prefer blue but do girls necessarily have a preference
for the colour pink? This was the focus of LoBue and DeLoache’s (2011) investigation.
Using a cross-sectional study, children (7 months – 5 years of age) were given eight pairs of
objects (one object was always pink in every pair) and asked to choose one. Girls (around the
age of 2) picked the pink objects more frequently than boys. Boys also showed an increasing
‘avoidance’ of the pink objects signifying significant sex differences in children’s colour
preferences to pink. Children’s understanding of stereotypical colours is constant with adult
stereotypes. Picariello, Greenberg & Pillemer (1990) presented children with coloured
animals and asked them to distinguish whether the animals were girls or boys. They found
that children’s answers were greatly correlated with adult stereotypes; pink and lavender
regarded as feminine colours and navy blue, maroon and brown as masculine colours. Colour
stereotypes seem to influence predictions about gender and behaviour and contribute to the
peer-socialisation process. The effects of stereotyping on the basis of colour alone are
adequate in comparison to the effects of stereotyping on the basis of sex, however, colour
stereotypes do not show any age-related differences (Picariello, Greenberg & Pillemer, 1990).

Gender-typing by colour is also seen in toys. Colour is a factor children use to judge whether
neutral and indistinct toys are ‘boy’ toys or ‘girl’ toys (Cherney, Harper & Winter, 2005).
“Toys stimulate pretend play, the development of cognitive skills, and social play
with other children.” (Blakemore & Centers, 2005, p. 619). Toys are also extremely gender-
stereotyped (a football is regarded as a strongly masculine toy and a sewing machine as a
strong feminine toy). Girl toys are often linked with attractiveness and domestic skill (i.e.
baby doll stroller) and boy toys associated when violence and excitement (i.e. sword). Neutral
toys often associated with cognitive and educational skill (Blakemore & Centers, 2005).
Children prefer traditionally stereotyped toys for their own sex. Gender-typed toy preferences
have been evident in research looking into children’s play (Goldman, Smith & Keller, 1982;
Eisenberg, Murray & Hite, 1982) and studies looking into favourite toy preferences
(Bradbard, 1985; Ross & Ross, 1972). Children who are exposed to own gender-stereotyped
toys, limit their experiences; Bem (1975) suggests that androgyny is psychologically healthier
since it offers greater flexibility. Martin, Eisenbud & Rose (1995) investigated how children
use gender-based thinking to make predictions about toy preferences using unfamiliar toys.
Children were shown novel, non-gender-typed toys and then asked how much other boys and
girls would like the toys. As predicted children made gender-based interpretation, “What I
like, children of my sex will also like, and children of the other sex will not like.” (Martin,
Eisenbud & Rose, 1995, p. 1453) However, it is unclear from the literature whether
stereotyped-toys or stereotyped-colours have a greater impact in making judgements; if
children depend on colours enough to use them as a sex defining mechanism, it is important
to distinguish how children form their judgements - can children integrate both toy gender
and colour simultaneously to make judgements about toy preferences? This issue will be a
focus of the current investigation. Furthermore, the effect of counter-stereotypical inferences
on judgement seems to be notably absent from the literature.
The current study aimed to investigate how different gender-related inferences

(stereotypical and counter-stereotypical cues) are used by children aged between 4-9 in
predicting toy preferences and also aimed to investigate whether toy preferences are driven
by toy stereotypes or colour stereotypes or both. Younger children were likely to predict on
the basis of sex alone discounting relevant information (i.e. character interests). Older
children were anticipated to use all of the presented information (i.e. gender, interests, toy
colour) to make their predictions. Children were also expected to make different toy
preferences on the basis of toy gender and toy colour. Particularly, children (regardless of age)

should predict stereotypical male characters will like playing with blue ‘masculine’
stereotyped-toys than pink ‘feminine’ toys and a stereotypical female characters will like
playing with pink ‘feminine’ stereotyped-toys than with blue ‘masculine’ toys. Possible age
differences will be found when children make judgements for counter-stereotypical
inferences; older children should see an overlap in the interests, toy gender and toy colours
hence being able to differentiate more between gender groups. Although, younger children
would simply rely on gender categories rather on gender-related inferences.
Method
Participants
The participants were pupils from a community primary school in the London
Borough of Ealing. Pupils known to be eligible for and claiming free school meals (43.7%),
pupils’ first language known or believed to be English (23.9%) and pupils first language
known or believed to be other than English (76.1%). Seventy-two ‘typically’ developing
children were tested; 24 children from each year group. Reception: 4-5 year olds (M = 5.02,
SD = 0.29), year 2: 6-7 year olds (M = 6.89, SD = 0.29) and year 4: 8-9 year olds (M = 9.04,
SD = 0.36). In each year group, half of the children were male and half were female.
Materials
The materials consisted of a total of twelve toy photos, eight character profiles and a
four point faces rating scale. There were three masculine (sword, car, cricket set) and three
feminine (dollhouse, pram, bag) toys. The dollhouse and pram are regarded as ‘strongly
feminine toys’ and the sword and car as ‘strongly masculine toys’ (Blakemore & Centers,
2005). Each toy photo was then digitally edited using Adobe Photoshop CS6, so they were
either coloured pink or blue; total of twelve images (see Appendix A). Each image was
printed out on separate squares of paper (5cm x 3.5cm). The eight character profiles
represented fictional characters with stereotypical and counter-stereotypical interests; two
stereotypical boys, two stereotypical girls, two counter-stereotypical boys and two counter-
stereotypical girls. Each profile consisted of three illustrations (clipart obtained from Google
images) with captions; all on a single sheet of A4 paper (see Appendix B). Each character
was given a name; they all had a best friend and liked playing an activity (football, building
games, skipping, dressing up). The stereotypical characters had best friends who were the
same sex and liked playing a gender-stereotyped activity (i.e. captions: this is a boy called

Tom. Tom’s best friend is a boy. Tom really likes playing football games with all the boys in
his class). The counter-stereotypical characters had best friends who were the opposite sex
and liked playing counter gender-stereotypical activities (i.e. captions: this boy is called Josh.
Josh’s best friend is a girl. Josh really likes playing skipping games with all the girls in his
class). The rating scale used four faces each expressing a different level of expression; the
faces were obtained from the Mosby Pain Rating Scale (Moore, 2012). By each face was a
caption describing what each face represented: would really love to play with it, would like to
play with it quite a lot, would like to play with it a tiny bit and wouldn’t like to play with it at
all (see Appendix C). Scores were reported in tables for each participant using Microsoft
Word 2010 on a laptop (Dell Studio 1555). The table was made up of five colunms and five
rows; the first colunm were the list of toys presented and along the top row were the character
profiles presented.
Procedure
Each participant was tested individually. The child and experimenter sat facing one
another at a table in the corridor outside a classroom. Before the experiment took place the
child was asked what toys they liked and disliked playing with using the four point rating
scale; this was done to familiarise the participants with the rating scale. The child was told
they were going to help the experimenter choose which toys certain characters would like or
dislike playing with. Each child was presented with four character profiles (stereotypical
boy/girl and counter-stereotypical boy/girl). The character profile was read out in three stages,
covering the latter two illustrations and captions until they were read out to avoid distraction
and any confounding variables (i.e. Caption 1. This is a girl called Rachel. Caption 2.
Rachel’s best friend is a boy. Caption 3. Rachel really likes playing building games with all
the boys in her class). After each character profile was read out, the child was presented with
a selection of four toy images (masculine pink toy, masculine blue toy, feminine pink toy and
feminine blue toy). Each toy was presented separately. The child was asked to rate how much
the fictional character would like to play with each toy by pointing to a face on the four point
faces rating scale before moving on to the next character profile. The order in which each toy
and character profile were presented was randomised for each child. Every child had a total
of 16 scores (4 character profiles x 4 toy types) which ranged between 1 and 4. Each
score/number was coded in relation to the rating scale options: (4) would really love to play
with it, (3) would like to play with it quite a lot, (2) would like to play with it a tiny bit and (1)
wouldn’t like to play with it at all.

CONFLICTING GENDER CUES & POTENTIAL JUDGEMENT | 10
The character profiles and toys were all counterbalanced. Each child was presented
with either one set of character profiles (stereotypical boy football, stereotypical girl dressing
up, counter-stereotypical boy skipping and counter-stereotypical girl building games) or a
second set of character profiles (stereotypical boy building games, stereotypical girl skipping,
counter-stereotypical boy dressing and counter-stereotypical girl football). Twelve
combinations of toys were used with all toys equally represented (each toy/colour appears
twice). These twelve combinations of toys were assigned to the twelve boys and twelve girls
in each year group (see Appendix D). The experiment took approximately under ten minutes
for each child.
Design
A mixed design with two between-subject variables and four within-subject variables
were used. The two between-subject variables were participant gender and participant year
group. The four within-subject variables were the character gender (male vs. female),
character interest (stereotypical interest vs. counter-stereotypical interest), toy type
(masculine vs. feminine toy) and toy colour (pink vs. blue). The dependent variable in all the
analyses were the pariticpants’ rating of how much the characters would like to play with the
given toys. The toys were a repeated measures variable; after each character, the participant
were presented with the same four toys. Each participant experienced four characters (male
stereotypical, male counter-stereotypical, female stereotypical, female counter-stereotypcial).
The ratings was measured with a 4 point faces scale (four different levels of expression).
Ethical Issues
A criminal record check (CRB) was obatined. The headteacher/assistant head

provided consent for the research to be carried out at the school. A parent information letter
with a opt-out slip was sent out to all pupils in reception, year 2 and year 4 (only three were
returned). The parent information letter described the purpose of the research and how
participation was voluntary (see Appendix E). It also explained that the research will be
carried out at a time that is convenient, not disrupt their child’s learning and that children will
remain anonymous and no individual child will be referred to either by name or performance
(participants were allocated a number and all data was stored under this participant number).
Only the research investigator had access to the data files. Participants were given a simple
introduction to the tasks, providing verbal agreement to participation. This choice is made on
the basis that we are not singling out any children for specific work. Particpants were

explicitly told that they can withdraw at any time and that they can skip over any question
they do not wish to answer. Each year group were debriefed after the experiement explaining
the aims of the study. The study was given ethical approval by the Life Sciences and
Psychology Cluster based Research Ethics Committee (C-REC) (see Appendix F).
Results
Each participant provided data on how much each fictional character would play with
a selection of toys. An initial omnibus mixed-design ANOVA with all six variables (two
between-subjects variables – participant gender, participant year group; and four within-
subjects variables – character gender, character interests, toy type, toy colour) was used. It
revealed multiple significant interactions between all the variables. For example, there was a
statistically significant main effect for character interest (F(1, 66) = 5.32, p < .024 and a
statistically significant character interest * character gender interaction effect (F(1, 66) =
37.74, p < .001). In the view of the complexity of these interactions, the analysis reported
below examines the effects of year group, toy gender and toy colour separately for both
stereotypical and counter-stereotypical boys and girls. Participants’ ratings were submitted to
a mixed-design ANOVA. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test was used.
Stereotypical Boy
Table 1 shows the mean ratings and standard deviations of reception, year 2 and year
4 for how much a fictional stereotypical boy would play with both masculine and feminine
toys coloured pink and blue. The mixed-design ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of
toy colour (F(1, 66) = 57.73, p < .001), as was the main effect of toy gender (F(1, 66) =
130.12, p < .001) and a statistically significant toy gender * participant gender interaction
effect (F(1, 66) = 4.63, p < .035). The Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for blue
toys (M = 2.55, SD = 2.03) was significantly different than pink toys (M = 1.76, SD = 1.96).
It also indicated that the mean score for ‘masculine’ toys (M = 2.76, SD = 2.13) was
significantly different than ‘feminine’ toys (M = 1.55, SD = 1.86). The post hoc tests to
follow up the interaction between toy gender and participant gender showed that the mean
scores of girls for ‘masculine’ toys (M = 3.01, SD = 1.94) was significantly higher than mean
scores of boys for ‘masculine’ toys (M = 2.51, SD = 2.20) at a p < .004 level of significance.
However, mean scores of girls (M = 1.57, SD =1.93) and boys (M = 1.53, SD = 1.67) did not
significantly differ for ‘feminine’ toys. No main effect or interaction effect of year group.

Regardless of year group, mean ratings were elevated on blue items and masculine items. All
other comparisons were not significant.
Table 1.
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations (SD) for How Much a Stereotypical Boy would Play
with Masculine and Feminine Items Coloured Pink and Blue Across each Year Group.
Blue Pink
Boy Toys Girl Toys Boy Toys Girl Toys
Reception 3.29 (1.19) 2.25 (1.22) 2.38 (1.31) 1.63 (1.24)
Year 2 3.00 (0.93) 1.58 (0.93) 2.33 (1.20) 1.00 (0.00)
Year 4 3.50 (0.83) 1.67 (0.76) 2.08 (0.83) 1.17 (0.64)
Stereotypical Girl
4 for how much a fictional stereotypical girl would play with both masculine and feminine
toys coloured pink and blue.
Table 2.
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations (SD) for How Much a Stereotypical Girl would Play
with Masculine and Feminine Items Coloured Pink and Blue Across each Year Group.
Blue Pink
Reception 1.91 (1.32) 3.50 (1.06) 2.96 (1.37) 3.83 (0.48)
Year 2 1.79 (1.06) 3.50 (0.72) 2.33 (1.13) 3.54 (0.83)
Year 4 1.42 (0.65) 3.29 (0.86) 2.75 (1.07) 3.71 (0.62)
The mixed-design ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of toy colour (F(1, 66) =
29.90, p < .001), as was the main effect of toy gender (F(1, 66) = 189.48, p < .001) and a
statistically significant toy colour * toy gender interaction effect (F(1, 66) = 8.91, p < .004).
The Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for pink toys (M = 3.19, SD = 1.87) was
significantly different than to blue toys (M = 2.57, SD = 1.94). It also indicated that the mean
score for ‘feminine’ toys (M = 3.56, SD = 1.55) was significantly different than ‘masculine’
toys (M = 2.19, SD = 2.26). The post hoc tests to follow up the interaction between toy colour

and toy gender showed that mean scores for blue ‘feminine’ toys (M = 3.43, SD = 0.89) was
significantly higher than blue ‘masculine’ toys (M = 1.71, SD = 1.05) at a p < .001 level of
significance. The mean scores for pink ‘feminine’ (M = 3.69, SD = 0.66) toys was also
significantly higher than pink ‘masculine’ toys (M = 2.68, SD = 1.21) at a p < .039 level of
significance (see Figure 1). Although feminine toys were always rated more highly than
masculine toys, the gap was greater for blue toys than for pink toys. No main effect or
interaction effect of year group. Regardless of year group, mean ratings were elevated on blue
and pink feminine items. All other comparisons were not significant.
3
Mean Rating
Boy Toy
2 Girl Toy
1
Blue Toy Pink Toy
Toy Colour
Figure 1. Interaction between toy colour and toy gender for a stereotypical girl character.
Error bars denote plus and minus one standard error.
Counter-Stereotypical Boy
The mixed-design ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of toy gender (F(1, 66) =
4.41, p < .040) and a significant toy colour * toy gender * year interaction effect (F(1, 66) =
3.17, p < .048). The Tukey HSD test indicated that mean score for ‘masculine’ toys (M =
2.74, SD = 2.38) was significantly different than to ‘feminine’ toys (M = 2.44, SD = 2.45).
The post hoc tests to follow up the interaction between toy colour, toy gender and year group
(see Figure 2) showed that for blue ‘masculine’ toys, the youngest age group (reception)
scored significantly higher (M = 3.00, SD = 1.29) than year 4 (M = 2.33, SD = 1.05) at a p
< .054 level of significance. Children’s ratings in year 2 (M = 1.96, SD = 1.12) for blue
‘feminine’ toys were significantly lower than ratings of children in year 4 (M = 2.88, SD =
0.74) at a p < .006 level of significance. Children’s ratings for pink ‘masculine’ toys in year 2

(M = 2.38, SD = 1.21) were significantly lower than ratings of children in year 4 (M = 3.17,
SD = 0.92) at a p < .023 level of significance. The youngest age group (reception) scored
significantly higher (M = 2.71, SD = 1.46) than year 2 (M = 1.88, SD = 1.23) for pink
‘feminine’ toys at a p < .027 level of significance. Children’s ratings in year 4 (M = 2.88, SD
= 1.03) were also significantly higher for pink ‘feminine’ toys than year 2 at a p < .009 level
of significance. Although masculine toys were rated more highly; the oldest age group (year
4) scored lower than the youngest age group (reception) for blue masculine toys (as children
get older, mean ratings for blue masculine toys begin to decrease). All other comparisons
were not significant.
3
Mean Rating
2
Boy Toy
Girl Toy
1
Reception
Reception
Year 2
Year 4
Year 2
Year 4
Blue Toy Pink Toy

Toy Colour & Year Group
Figure 2. Interaction between toy colour, toy gender and year group for a counter-
stereotypical boy character. Error bars denote plus and minus one standard error.
Counter-Stereotypical Girl
4 for how much a fictional counter-stereotypical girl would play with both masculine and
feminine toys coloured pink and blue. The mixed-design ANOVA yielded a significant toy
gender * year group interaction effect (F(1, 66) = 5.27, p < .008) and a significant toy colour
* toy gender * year group * participant gender interaction effect (F(1, 66) = 3.08, p < .027).
The Tukey HSD test to follow up the interaction between toy gender and year group (see
Figure 3) showed children’s ratings in reception (M = 2.77, SD = 2.65) for ‘masculine’ toys
were significantly higher than ratings of children in year 2 (M = 2.21, SD = 2.14) at a p
< .026 level of significance. Children’s ratings in year 4 (M = 2.69, SD = 2.26) were also

significantly higher for ‘masculine’ toys than those in year 2 at a p < .056 level of
significance. Children’s ratings of ‘feminine’ toys in year 4 (M = 2.27, SD = 1.74) were
significantly lower than ratings of children in reception (M = 3.01, SD = 2.43) at a p < .002
level of significance. Ratings of ‘feminine’ toys in year 4 were also significantly lower than
ratings of children in year 2 (M = 2.99, SD = 2.26) at a p < .007 level of significance.
Table 3.
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations (SD) for How Much a Counter-Stereotypical Girl
would Play with Masculine and Feminine Items Coloured Pink and Blue Across each Year
Group.
Blue Pink
Reception 2.79 (1.32) 3.00 (1.38) 2.75 (1.33) 3.21 (1.18)
Year 2 1.96 (1.12) 2.97 (1.14) 2.46 (1.02) 3.04 (1.12)
Year 4 2.58 (1.14) 2.29 (0.75) 2.79 (1.02) 2.25 (0.99)
The post hoc tests to follow up the interaction between toy colour, toy gender, year
group and participant gender showed ratings by boys in reception (M = 3.08, SD = 1.24) for
blue ‘masculine’ toys were significantly higher than the ratings by boys in year 2 (M = 1.58,
SD = 0.90) at a p < .003 level of significance in contrast to the mean ratings by girls for blue
‘masculine’ toys, there was no significant interaction between reception (M = 2.50, SD =
1.38), year 2 (M = 2.33, SD = 1.23) and year 4 (M = 2.92, SD = 1.00). The ratings of girls in
year 2 (M = 2.00, SD = 0.85) for pink ‘masculine’ toys were significantly lower than the
ratings of girls in year 4 (M = 3.00, SD = 1.21) at a p < .032 level of significance. In contrast
to the ratings by boys for pink ‘masculine’ toys in reception (M = 2.83, SD = 1.33), year 2 (M
= 2.92, SD = 1.00) and year 4 (M = 2.58, SD = 0.79), there was no significant mean
differences between each year group. The mean ratings of boys in reception (M = 3.42, SD =
1.00) for pink ‘feminine’ toys was significantly higher than the ratings of boys in year 4 (M =
1.83, SD = 0.94) at a p < .001 level of significance. Boy’s ratings for pink ‘feminine’ toys in
year 2 (M = 3.17, SD = 1.11) were also significantly higher than the ratings of boys in year 4
at a p < .004 level of significance (see Figure 4).

3
Mean Rating
Boy Toy
2 Girl Toy
1
Reception Year 2 Year 4
Year Group
Figure 3. Interaction between year group and toy gender for a counter-stereotypical girl
character. Error bars denote plus and minus one standard error.
In contrast to the ratings by girls for pink ‘feminine’ toys there was no significant
mean differences between reception (M = 3.00, SD = 1.35), year 2 (M = 2.92, SD = 1.16) and
year 4 (M = 2.67, SD = 0.89). Although mean scores do decrease as children get older. There
were no significant mean differences for blue ‘feminine’ toys. All other comparisons were
not significant.
3
Mean Rating
Pink Girl Toy

2
1
Reception Year 2 Year 4
Boys in each Year Group
Figure 4. Boys ratings for a counter-stereotypical girl playing with a pink girl toy. Error bars
denote plus and minus one standard error.

Discussion
The current study aimed to investigate whether children used different gender-related
inferences to predict toy preferences and whether these toy preferences were driven by
stereotyped-toys or stereotyped-colours. The study establishes that younger children do rely
on the basis of sex when making judgements on toy preferences, disregarding relevant
inferences (i.e. interests) which reflects categorical thinking; ignoring appropriate
information that differentiates each character. While older children consider character related
inferences when making their judgements. Children in all three year groups (regardless of age)
as expected, predicted that stereotypical boy’s would like ‘masculine’ toys and stereotypical
girl’s would like ‘feminine’ toys. These findings are consistent with the results of the Martin
(1989) study.
However, Martin (1989) found pronounced differences between age groups; for
example older children predicted a stereotypical boy would like ‘masculine’ toys more and
like ‘feminine’ toys less than young children, however, this is not the case with the current
investigation. 4-5 year olds predicted, expected toy preferences for both stereotypical boys
and girls as highly as did 8-9 year olds, for instance younger children predicted that
stereotypical girl’s would like ‘feminine’ toys more and ‘masculine’ toys less than older
children, however for both stereotypical boy and girl characters there was no main or
interaction effect of age group. The common adage “pink is for girls, blue is for boys” is
evident in children’s predictions of toy preferences for stereotypical characters; for instance,
a stereotypical boy will like to play with blue toys more than pink toys. Children’s
understanding of stereotypical colours is consistent with colour-gender-stereotypes (Picariello,
Greenberg & Pillemer, 1990). Furthermore, children did predict, as expected that
stereotypical boys will like playing with blue ‘masculine’ stereotyped-toys than pink
‘feminine’ toys and stereotypical girls will like playing with pink ‘feminine’ stereotyped-toys
than with blue ‘masculine’ toys. Although, interestingly enough, children’s judgment of toy
preferences for stereotypical characters seem to be driven by gender-stereotyped toys and not
colour, for instance, stereotypical girls will like to play with ‘feminine’ toys whether it was
coloured in either blue or pink. Research has shown children prefer traditionally stereotyped
toys for their sex, additionally research into gender-based reasoning (Martin, Eisenbud &
Rose, 1995) has also demonstrated children use relevant information to guide their own
preference and possible expectations for others. In respects to the current study, the toys the

child likes, the stereotypical character of the child’s sex will also like and the stereotypical
character of the other sex will not like.
The most intriguing findings were when children predicted toy preferences for
counter-stereotypical characters. Young children (particularly 4-5 year olds) seem to rely on
only information about the sex of the character, disregarding the character’s interests. They
assume boys with counter-stereotypical inferences will still like ‘masculine’ toys and girls
with counter-stereotypical inferences will like ‘feminine’ toys. Additionally, they assume
counter-stereotypical boys will also like ‘masculine’ toys that are in blue and counter-
stereotypical girls will like ‘feminine’ toys that are in pink. Suggesting adequate effect of
colour. Young children also seem to rely on stereotyped-colours (pink for girls, blue for boys)
when predicting toy preferences showing age-related differences of colour stereotypes which
are inconsistent with findings by Picariello, Greenberg & Pillemer (1990). According to
Martin (1985; cited in Martin, 1989) young children seem to be “gender-centric” due to their
failure to discriminate within gender groups. Young children seem to follow rigid gender and
colour stereotypes (i.e. all girls like dolls and the colour pink) rather than flexible stereotypes
(i.e. some girls like dolls and the colour pink). This rigid conception is possibly a reason why
young children do not use relevant information to differentiate between gender groups.
Kohlberg’s (1966) theory of gender constancy suggests children (about the age of 4) realise
gender is constant (i.e. boys will become dads when they grow up) however there is an
incomplete understanding of gender constancy – probably reflecting categorical thinking; this
is possibly why young children cannot consider relevant inferences when making judgments.
The significance of Kohlberg’s theory is it sets a constant developmental order and each stage
of the theory is associated with maturity (illustrating age-related differences).
Older children (8-9 year olds) were able to consider relevant inferences (i.e. interests,
toy colour) when making their judgements for counter-stereotypical characters. It is possible
older children develop androgynous gender schemas giving them greater flexibility (Bem,
1981). Just like younger children, older children did not ignore sex of the characters. For
instance, boys with counter-stereotypical inferences will like to play with ‘masculine’ toys.
However, older children were able to integrate counter-stereotypical inferences and assume a
boy with such qualities will less likely to play with blue ‘masculine’ toys and more likely to
play with pink ‘masculine’ toys. Older children are able to associate ‘feminine’ colours with
counter-gender-stereotyped interests in boys. Toy predictions by older children seem to be
influenced by character interest, toy gender and toy colours. For instance, older children
predicted that a girl who likes a counter-gender-stereotyped interest (i.e. football) would be

interested in ‘masculine’ toys. Older children are also able predict that a girl displaying
counter-stereotypical interests would less likely play with ‘feminine’ toys. This particular
finding is inconsistent with the findings from Berndt and Heller (1986) who found children
aged around 8 years ignored relevant inferences and predicted preferences on the basis of sex.
Interestingly and unexpected, there were gender differences; older boys were able to predict
that a counter-stereotypical girl would less likely play with pink ‘feminine’ toys than younger
boys compared to girls. A distinction between relevant information available to a child and
what relevant information they integrate when making judgments needs to be made.
Biological factors may explain the gender differences. Genetic differences in boys and girls
lead to the production of hormones, these hormones may influence brain development
henceforth behaviour patterns (Smith, Cowie & Blades, 2003). Money and Ehrhardt (1972;
cited in Smith, Cowie & Blades, 2003) found girls who were exposed to androgen before
birth reported themselves as ‘tomboyish’ and less likely to like feminine items. Biological
factors, however do not explain the differences in sex roles in society. The gender schema
theory explains the flexibility of children’s stereotypes; young children simply reject
information inconsistent with their gender schema explaining why children are vastly sexist
despite upbringing, since they seek to fill out their schema with gender-appropriate schema.
Nonetheless, one study found children had less conventional gender-role outlooks if their
mothers worked outside the home, suggesting children are simply amenable to inconsistent
information (Gibbons et al., 1996; cited in Schneider, 2005). This could explain why children
make appropriate judgements using conflicting gender inferences (counter-stereotypical
information).
There are several limitations associated with the current investigation. First, the
problem in using acknowledged gender-stereotyped toys is the children’s familiarity and
possible reinforcement with these toys and this may account for their judgments on toy
preferences. To overcome this issue, a follow-up study can investigate how different gender
cues are used by children in predicting ‘novel’ toy preferences. Novel items are usually not
associated with gender (Bradbard & Endsley, 1983). Second, it is difficult to measure
whether children from various backgrounds (i.e. racial groups, SES) would answer differently
to those children tested. Third, the current study assessed one key aspect relevant to
children’s predictions of toy selections – their stated preferences for others’. However, the
relationship between children’s actual behaviour and stated preferences for others’ has not
been examined although children’s predictions are possibly more likely to be stereotypic. Yet,
children’s predictions of toy preferences may be related to their own toy preferences.

Children may naively limit the choice of their own and others’ play experiences when using
gender-based reasoning. Unable to collect data on children’s gender knowledge, the current
study cannot determine the mechanism by which children begin to show preferences for
colour. Additional research needs to investigate the relationship between existing gender
knowledge and judgement. Although, current results are consistent with a number of
approaches of gender development, “as children develop their own concepts of gender, they
actively seek out gender-related information and assimilate it into their own gender schemas.”
(LoBue and DeLoache, 2011, p. 665).
The current study shows when children develop the ability to integrate several
information sources instantaneously to make judgements and this in turn, has important
implications for how children develop the understanding of masculinity and femininity as
distinctive characteristics. Understanding when children start to show these abilities can help
add to current knowledge to the development of schemas and present a significant domain for
future research, for instance the impact of gender-inconsistent ideas on gender-role attitudes.
In conclusion, the findings of the current investigation demonstrated that younger
children simply rely on sex and colour to link gender-related information with toy
preferences yet older children showed a greater ability by integrating numerous information
sources to make appropriate judgments also illustrating the impact of stereotyped-colour on
conflicting gender inferences. A dual process model could possibly describe how
stereotypical and counter-stereotypical gender inferences influence judgement.

References
Blakemore, J. E., & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of Boys’ and Girls’ Toys. Sex
Roles, 53(9/10), 619-633. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-7729-0.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological
Review, 88, 354-364.
Berndt, T. J., & Heller, K. A. (1986). Gender stereotypes and social inferences: A
developmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 889-898.
Bradbard, M. R. (1985). Sex differences in adults' gifts and children's toy requests at
Christmas. Psychological Reports, 56, 969-970.
Bradbard, M. R., & Endsley, R. C. (1983). The effects of sex-typed labeling on preschool
children's information-seeking and retention. Sex Roles, 9, 247-260.
Cann, A., & Newbem, S. R. (1984). Sex stereotype effects in children's picture recognition.
Child Development, 55,1085-1090.
Cunningham, S. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2011). The colour of gender stereotyping. British
Journal of Psychology, 102, 598-614.
Ding, S., & Littleton, K. (2005). Children’s Personal and Social Development. Milton
Keynes, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Eisenberg, N. H., Murray, E., & Hite, T. (1982). Children's reasoning regarding sex-typed toy
choices. Child Development, 53, 81-86.
Gnepp, J., & Gould, M. E. (1985). The development of personalized inferences:
Understanding other people's emotional reactions in light of their prior experiences.
Child Development, 56, 1455-1464.
Goldman, J. A., Smith, J., & Keller, E. D. (1982). Sex-role preference in young children:
What are we measuring? Journal of Genetic Psychology, 141, 83-92.
Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-development analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and
attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (ed.) The Development of Sex Differences. Standford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2011). The early development of gender-stereotyped colour
preferences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 656-667.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Martin, C. L. (1989). Children’s use of gender-related information in making social
judgements. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 80-88.

Martin, C. L., Eisenbud, L., & Rose, H. (1995). Children’s gender-based reasoning about toys.
Child Development, 66(5), 1453-1471.
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. Jr. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and
stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119-1134.
Moore, H. R. (2012, February 25). Weighing the pain scale [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://heidiwriting.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/day-246-weighing-the-pain-scale/
Picariello, M. L., Greenberg, D. N., & Pillemer, D. B. (1990). Children’s sex-related
stereotyping of colours. Child Development, 61(5), 1453-1460.
Rasinski, K. A., Crocker, J., & Hastie, R. (1985). Another look at sex stereotypes and social
judgments: An analysis of the social perceiver's use of subjective probabilities.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49, 317-326.
Ross, D. M., & Ross, S. A. (1972). Resistance by preschool boys to sex-inappropriate
behaviour. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 342-346.
Schneider, D. (2005). The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York, USA: Guilford Press.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., & Blades, M. (2003). Understanding Children’s Development.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Vandewiele, M., D'Hondt, W., Didillon, H., Iwawake, S., & Mwamwenda, T. (1986).
Number and colour preferences in four countries. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63.
945-946.

Appendix A

Appendix B
This is a boy called Josh.
Josh’s best friend is a girl.
Josh really likes playing skipping games with all the girls in his class.

This is a girl called Tanya.
Tanya’s best friend is a girl.
Tanya really likes playing skipping games with all the girls in her class.

This is a boy called Tom.
Tom’s best friend is a boy.
Tom really likes playing football games with all the boys in his class.

This is a girl called Emily.
Emily’s best friend is a boy.
Emily really likes playing football games with all the boys in her class.

This is a boy called Jamie.
Jamie’s best friend is a boy.
Jamie really likes playing building games with all the boys in his class

This is a girl called Rachel.
Rachel’s best friend is a boy.
Rachel really likes playing building games with all the boys in her class.

This is a girl called Sarah
Sarah’s best friend is a girl.
Sarah really likes playing dressing up games with all the girls in her class.

This is a boy called Reece
Reece’s best friend is a girl.
Reece really likes playing dressing up games with all the girls in his class.

Appendix C
Wouldn’t like to play with it at all
Would like to play with it a tiny bit
Would like to play with it quite a lot
Would really love to play with it

Appendix D
Ppt No: 1 Class/Year Group: DOB: Gender: M
Order 1 SB Football SG Dressing Up CSB Skipping CSG Building

Blue sword
Pink car
Blue bag
Pink house
Order 2 SB Building SG Skipping CSB Dressing CSG Football

Up
Pink sword
Blue car
Pink bag
Blue house

Blue sword
Pink cricket
Blue bag
Pink pram
Order 4 SB Building SG Skipping CSB Dressing CSG Football

Up
Pink sword
Blue cricket
Pink bag
Blue pram

Blue car 2 4 1 4
Pink cricket 4 2 3 3
Blue house 4 2 4 1
Pink pram 4 3 4 1

Appendix E
Parent Information Sheet and Opt-out form
Dear Parents/Guardians,
Researchers from the University of Sussex are carrying out a project on children's stereotypes
about gender-stereotypes regarding colours and toys, with children in Reception, Year 2, and
Year 4 at our school. They are particularly focused on how children weigh up colour (e.g.,
dark blue or bright pink) and the type of toy (e.g., toy car or toy pram) when thinking about
what hypothetical boys and girls would like to play with. Children will be shown cartoon
pictures of boys and girls and asked to predict how much the characters would like to play
with different toys of different colours (e.g., pink bat and ball set). Pupils will complete these
tasks individually with the researcher at school, at a time that is convenient and would not
disrupt their learning. They do not have to take part on the day if they do not want to do so,
and there are no right or wrong answers. All the children will remain anonymous and no
individual child will be referred to either by name or performance.
This project has been given ethical approval by the Life Sciences and Psychology Cluster
based Research Ethics Committee (C-REC).
If you have any questions contact the researcher carrying out the work; Stephan Amaranath
on tel: 07804 187204 or email: sa377@sussex.ac.uk. You can also contact the Supervisor of
the research at the University of Sussex: Dr. Robin Banerjee on tel: 01273 877222 or email:
robinb@sussex.ac.uk.
If you do NOT want your child to take part then please sign and return the slip below as soon
as possible.
I do NOT want my child (full name) ......................................................................

(Class) ...................... to take part in the University of Sussex research, as described in the
letter.
Signed: .................................................. (Parent/Guardian)

Appendix F
Life Sciences & Psychology Cluster based Research Ethics Committee
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Reference Number: RBSA1111
Do conflicting gender cues influence children’s judgements about
Title of Project: future preferences?
Principal Investigator: Robin Banerjee

Student: Stephan Amaranath
Collaborators:
Duration of Approval 4 months

(not greater than 4 years)
Expected Start Date:* January 2012
This project has been given ethical approval by the Life Sciences and Psychology Cluster
based Research Ethics Committee (C-REC).
*NB. If the actual project start date is delayed beyond 12 months of the expected start date, this
Certificate of Approval will lapse and the project will need to be reviewed again to take account of
changed circumstances such as legislation, sponsor requirements and University procedures.
Please note and follow the requirements for approved submissions:
Amendments to protocol.
 Any changes or amendments to approved protocols must be submitted to the C-

REC for authorisation prior to implementation.
Feedback regarding the status and conduct of approved projects
 Any incidents with ethical implications that occur during the implementation of the

project must be reported immediately to the Chair of the C-REC.

The principal investigator is required to provide a brief annual written statement to the committee,
indicating the status and conduct of the approved project. These reports will be reviewed at the
annual meeting of the committee. A statement by the Principal Investigator to the C-REC
indicating the status and conduct of the approved project will be required on the following date(s):
December 2012……….………………………………………………………………………………
Authorised Signature
Jennifer Rusted
Name of Authorised Signatory
(C-REC Chair or nominated deputy) Jennifer Rusted
Date 19 January 2012

Pretty in Pink?: Children's Use of Gender Inferences in Predicting Others' Toy Preferences

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Pretty in Pink?: Children's Use of Gender Inferences in Predicting Others' Toy Preferences

Загружено:

Авторское право:

CONFLICTING GENDER CUES & POTENTIAL JUDGEMENT |1

Pretty in Pink?: Children’s Use of Gender

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Keywords: Gender schema, toys, masculine, feminine, stereotypes, counter-

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Gender schemas are generalisations that categorise gender knowledge into

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The current study aimed to investigate how different gender-related inferences

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

A criminal record check (CRB) was obatined. The headteacher/assistant head

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Blue Toy Pink Toy

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Pink Girl Toy

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a boy called Josh.

Josh’s best friend is a girl.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a girl called Tanya.

Tanya’s best friend is a girl.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a boy called Tom.

Tom’s best friend is a boy.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a girl called Emily.

Emily’s best friend is a boy.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a boy called Jamie.

Jamie’s best friend is a boy.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a girl called Rachel.

Rachel’s best friend is a boy.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a girl called Sarah

Sarah’s best friend is a girl.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This is a boy called Reece

Reece’s best friend is a girl.

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Wouldn’t like to play with it at all

Would like to play with it a tiny bit

Would like to play with it quite a lot

Would really love to play with it

© 2012 STEPHAN AMARANATH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Ppt No: 1 Class/Year Group: DOB: Gender: M

Order 1 SB Football SG Dressing Up CSB Skipping CSG Building

Ppt No: 2 Class/Year Group: DOB: Gender: M

Order 2 SB Building SG Skipping CSB Dressing CSG Football

Ppt No: 3 Class/Year Group: DOB: Gender: M

Order 3 SB Football SG Dressing Up CSB Skipping CSG Building