How large are gender differences in toy preferences? A systematic review and meta-analysis of toy preference research

J.T.M. Davis, M Hines

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

It is generally recognized that there are gender-related differences in children’s toy preferences. However, the magnitude of these differences has not been firmly established. Furthermore, not all studies of gender-related toy preferences find significant gender differences. These inconsistent findings could result from using different toys or methods to measure toy preferences or from studying children of different ages. Our systematic review and meta-analysis combined 113 effect sizes from 75 studies to estimate the magnitude of gender-related differences in toy preferences. We also assessed the impact of using different toys or methods to assess these differences, as well as the effect of age on gender-related toy preferences. Boys preferred boy-related toys more than girls did, and girls preferred girl-related toys more than boys did. These differences were large (d ≥ 1.60). Girls also preferred toys that researchers classified as neutral more than boys did (d = 0.29). Preferences for gender-typical over gender-atypical toys were also large and significant (d ≥ 1.20), and girls and boys showed gender-related differences of similar magnitude. When only dolls and vehicles were considered, within-sex differences were even larger and of comparable size for boys and girls. Researchers sometimes misclassified toys, perhaps contributing to an apparent gender difference in preference for neutral toys. Forced choice methods produced larger gender-related differences than other methods, and gender-related differences increased with age.

Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)373–394
Number of pages22
JournalArchives of Sexual Behavior
Volume49
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020

Funding

J. T. M. Davis was supported by a Gates Cambridge scholarship during the production of this work.

FundersFunder number
Gates Cambridge Trust

    Cite this