Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0176-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Children’s Gender-Typed Activity Choices Across Preschool
Social Contexts
Priscilla Goble & Carol Lynn Martin & Laura D. Hanish &
Richard A. Fabes
Published online: 30 May 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Variability in children’s gender-typed activity
preferences was examined across several preschool social
contexts–solitary play, interactions with female peers, male
peers, and both, and interactions with teachers. Participants
were preschool children (N 0264; 49 % girls, M age 0
52 months, range 37–60) attending Head Start classes in
the Southwest United States. Seventy-three percent were
Mexican/Mexican-American, and 82 % of families earned
less than $30,000 per year. Children’s preferences for
gender-typed activities varied as a function of their own
gender and the identity of their interactional partners. Girls
and boys preferred gender-typed activities (e.g., girls pre-
ferred feminine activities) when in solitary play but activity
preferences changed across social contexts. Specifically,
girls played significantly more with masculine activities
when with male peers and boys played significantly more
with feminine activities during interactions with teachers.
Findings suggest that through social interactions with peers
and teachers, children are exposed to a greater range of
activities than what they experience when they play by
themselves.
Keywords Gender-typed activities . Gender differences .
Preschool
P. Goble (*) : C. L. Martin : L. D. Hanish : R. A. Fabes
Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA
e-mail: Priscilla.Goble@asu.edu
C. L. Martin
e-mail: Carol.Martin@asu.edu
L. D. Hanish
e-mail: Laura.Hanish@asu.edu
R. A. Fabes
e-mail: RFabes@asu.edu
Introduction
Research on children in the U.S. has consistently indicated
that gender-typed activity preferences are a salient aspect of
children’s play – girls tend to prefer feminine activities and
boys prefer masculine activities (Ruble et al. 2006). U.S.
researchers have shown that children’s preferences for
gender-typed activities emerge during the early years of life
and continue into middle and late childhood (Campbell et al.
2000; McHale et al. 2004), but may be particularly evident
during preschool. Interestingly, in a study of 1-, 3-, and 5-
year old Swedish children, gender-typed activity preferen-
ces peeked during preschool, a finding that is likely similar
for U.S. children (Servin et al. 1999).
Despite these well-documented preferences, significant
variability exists in preschool girls’ and boys’ involvement
with gender-typed activities. Unfortunately, the sources of
this variability are not well understood (Green et al. 2004).
One source of variability is the social situation in which the
child engages in the activity, that is, whether a child is
playing with girls, boys, or is interacting with the teacher.
Understanding situational variability in children’s activity
preferences is important because certain social situations
occur more frequently than others (e.g., play with same-
gender peers), thereby potentially influencing the rate at
which girls and boys engage with particular activities (e.g.,
Martin and Fabes 2001).
In the present study, we explored gender-typed activity
choices for a sample of U.S. preschoolers; importantly, we
did so with an eye toward examining the situational vari-
ability in girls’ and boys’ involvement in stereotypically
feminine, stereotypically masculine, and gender-neutral play
activities. Cognitive theories of gender development allow
for context sensitivity (e.g., Martin 2000), thereby suggest-
ing that variability in children’s preferences for gender-
436
typed activities is to be expected depending on the social
context (Durkin 2005). Consistent with cognitive approaches,
we assumed that children vary their behaviors in relation to
their immediate social context. Preschool classrooms provide
numerous opportunities for children to move from solitary
play into playing in one of a variety of social contexts: with
male peers, with female peers, with mixed-groups of both
male and female peers, and with teachers. These contexts
afford children with opportunities to engage in different ac-
tivities (Fabes et al. 2003; Fagot 1978).
Exploring children’s gender-typed activity preferences
when playing alone, with same-, other-, and mixed-gender
peers, and with teachers is important for understanding how
social contexts may shape children’s exposure to various
experiences that are likely to promote skill development
during preschool. The current study builds on existing re-
search documenting the development of children’s gender-
typed activity preferences and extends the work of research-
ers in the U.S. and other countries by shedding light on
sources of variability in children’s gender-typed activity
preferences during preschool. We explored variability by
comparing children’s gender-typed activity preferences
across various social contexts. All of the cited studies in
the following review of literature are based on U.S. samples
unless otherwise noted.
Children’s Gender-Typed Activities
Gender-typed activity preferences begin to emerge between
12 and 24 months, but early gender differences are found on
only a few activities (Caldera et al. 1989; O’Brien and
Huston 1985; Ruble and Martin 1998). As toddlers, boys
typically choose to play with blocks and balls, whereas girls
tend to play with dolls and doll clothes (Ruble et al. 2006).
By the time they are in preschool, however, gender differ-
ences cover a wider array of activity choices; boys choose to
play with balls, bikes, blocks, and transportation toys,
whereas girls prefer art activities, dolls, kitchen items, and
dress-up clothes (see Ruble, et al. 2006 and Berenbaum et
al. 2008 for a full review).
Given that children’s gender-typed activity preferences
have been well established for several decades, current
research on children’s gender-typed activity preferences fo-
cuses on the strength and rigidity, stability, and variability of
activity preferences across gender, time, and context. Stud-
ies examining these constructs, however, are relatively rare.
Examining strength and rigidity of preferences, Powlishta et
al. (1993) showed that although both genders evidence
gender-typed preferences, the strength of these preferences
in the preschool years differs for boys and girls, with boys
showing stronger gender-typed activity preferences than
girls. Similarly, in a study examining young children’s
gender-typed activity preferences during a laboratory play
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
session, girls played with neutral and feminine activities at
equally high rates, whereas boys primarily played with
masculine activities, suggesting that boys are more rigid in
their gender-typed activity preferences (Cherney et al.
2003). A few studies have also focused on the stability
and consistency of children’s gender-typed activity prefer-
ences over time. These studies found that preferences re-
main stable or get stronger over early childhood (Golombok
et al. 2008; Maccoby and Jacklin 1987; Martin and Fabes
2001; Martin and Ruble 2009). For instance, in research
conducted in southwest England, Golombok et al. (2008)
found that children who were most gender-typed in their
activity preferences in preschool were the same children
who were most gender-typed at age 8 years.
Fewer studies have examined variability in children’s
gender-typed activity preferences. Green et al. (2004) con-
sidered children’s gender-typed activity preferences across
both time (stability across time or within individual variabil-
ity) and after reading counter-stereotypic stories (across
situation variability). Results indicated that girls but not
boys showed variability in gender-typed activity preferences
over time and across situations. Although this study pro-
vides insight into how children’s activity preferences vary
across a specific gendered situation (reading counter-
stereotypic stories), we know less about how children’s
gender-typed activity preferences vary across situations that
are more common in their everyday lives. For preschool-
aged children, gender-typed activity preferences may vary
considerably across the various social situations they en-
counter in the preschool setting, but, to date, this has not
been fully examined.
The Social Context of Preschool and its Impact on Girls
and Boys
As noted previously, the preschool classroom provides a
range of possible contexts in which children can play (i.e.,
solitary play, play with peers, and interactions with teach-
ers); each context may afford children different opportuni-
ties to engage in particular activities. That is, preschool
children may vary their activity involvement and have very
different experiences in play with specific activities depend-
ing on whether or not the context involves others (social
contexts). For example, Holmes-Lonergan (2003) found that
preschool girls and boys varied their interaction styles to
accommodate their peer partner’s gender and the type of
activity in which they were engaged. Specifically, in same-
gender dyads, girls were more likely to agree with each
other than boys were in same-gender dyads; however, in
mixed-gender dyads the boys were more agreeable than the
girls. Furthermore, children altered their verbal and nonver-
bal behaviors depending on the demands of the activity in
which they were engaged so that there was more controlling
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
and mitigating behaviors in activities that required more
problem solving and collaboration.
To accurately assess the role of preschool social contexts,
it is important to consider children’s gender-typed preferen-
ces when playing alone. Solitary play makes up about 25–
45 % of preschool children’s activities during free play and
is the preschool play context in which children’s activities
are least likely to be influenced by others, as compared to
other preschool contexts such as during play with peers or
interactions with teachers (Rubin et al. 1978). When alone,
boys prefer masculine activities and girls prefer feminine
activities (Ruble et al. 2006), but as the Cherney et al.
(2003) study showed, the genders differ in how often they
play in neutral activities. Girls play in neutral activities at
rates that are almost equal to their rates of engagement in
feminine activities whereas boys play in neutral activities
less than they play in masculine activities. Accordingly, in
the solitary play context we might expect that girls and boys
would have strong gender-typed activity preferences, but
that girls also will engage in high levels of neutral activity.
To our knowledge, only two studies have considered how
the preschool peer social context (including play with male-,
female-, mixed-gender peer groups) may enhance or mini-
mize children’s tendencies to play with feminine, masculine,
and neutral activities (Martin and Fabes 2001; Fabes et al.
2003). These studies found that girls and boys demonstrated
a strong preference for engaging in social interactions with
same-gender peers and that children in same-gender play
groups tended to engage with gender-typed toys (e.g.,
groups of boys engage in masculine activities; Fabes et al.
2003). Martin and Fabes (2001) showed that, for both girls
and boys, there was a positive relation between playing with
same-gender peers in the fall and increased gender-typed
activity preferences in the spring even after controlling for
gender-typed preferences in the fall, suggesting that both
girls’ and boys’ activity choices were influenced by their
interactions with same-gender peers. Moreover, when com-
paring play in gender-typed activities in same-gender versus
mixed- and other-gender peer groups, both boys and girls
engaged in significantly more gender-typed activities in
same-gender peer groups (Fabes et al. 2003). Based on these
findings, we expected that when children play with same-
gender play partners they would have a stronger preference for
gender-typed activities than they would during solitary play.
Fabes et al. (2003) explored the nature of children’s
interactions when they were in mixed-gender (i.e., playing
with both girls and boys) and other-gender (i.e., playing
only with members of the other gender) peer groups.
Although neither of these social contexts occurred as
often did same-gender peer groups, children interacted
in mixed-gender peer groups more often than they inter-
acted with other-gender peers. Peer interactions with
other- and mixed-gender peers likely provide children
437
with opportunities to explore activities typically preferred by
the other gender or activities that are gender-neutral. In partial
support of this, Fabes et al. (2003) found that, for girls,
preferences were less gender-typed when playing with
other-gender groups than when playing with mixed-gender
peer groups. Conversely, for boys, preferences were more
gender-typed when playing with other-gender groups than
when playing with mixed-gender peer groups. In other words,
girls engaged in fewer feminine activities when playing with
boys than when playing with a group of boys and girls,
whereas boys engaged in more masculine activities when
playing with girls than they did when playing with a group
of both girls and boys.
Although many of the findings from these studies are
consistent with what one would expect, some of the findings
were surprising. As we would expect, boys were found to
engage in masculine activities more with groups of male
than female peers. Contrary to what we would expect,
engagement in masculine activities was higher with groups
of female peers than mixed-gender peer groups where boys
were playing with both male and female peers. However, in
the Fabes et al. (2003) study, comparisons of children’s
levels of gender-typed activity involvement were only made
between social contexts (e.g., play with same-gender peers
versus play with other-gender peer groups), and there was
no measurement of engagement in masculine or feminine
activities when children were playing alone from which to
compare each social context. To more fully understand the
extent to which changes occur in different social contexts as
compared to solitary contexts, it is necessary to compare
children’s behavior with and without the influence of peers.
Given this, we examined variability across social contexts
relative to children’s baseline levels of activity involvement
during solitary play.
In addition to the peer social context, research suggests
that interactions with teachers have the potential to influence
children’s gender-typed activity preferences. In general, pre-
school teachers are female and they tend to spend more time
participating in feminine-typed activities over masculine-
typed activities, likely because many feminine activities
are academically based (e.g., reading, writing, art, etc.;
Fabes et al. 2003; Fagot 1978). This finding is particularly
important because children are more likely to engage in
activities in which teachers are involved (i.e., feminine
activities). Specifically, research conducted in Germany
and the U.S. shows that children’s activity preferences have
been correlated with teacher proximity suggesting that
teacher presence is influential (Oettingen 1985; Tomes
1995). In particular, when teachers were present in academic
areas, children were more likely to play in those areas,
suggesting that teacher location has an effect on children’s
activity preferences. Moreover, it has been demonstrated
through the manipulation of teacher location in a classroom
438
that teacher presence in activity areas has an impact on
children’s gender-typed activity choices. Indeed, teacher
presence increased rates of play significantly across both
masculine- and feminine-typed activities, although the find-
ing was stronger for girls than for boys (Serbin et al. 1981).
Theoretical Background for Exploring Social Contextual
Variations in Gender-typed Activity Preferences
Cognitive theorists have argued that children develop gen-
der schemas (organized networks of mental representations
about gender) that then influence preferences for gender-
typed activities (e.g., Martin 2000; Martin et al. 2011;
Martin and Halverson, 1981). Specifically, gender schema
theorists posit that because gender is extremely salient in our
culture, children use gender as a framework to process new
information in a manner that often conforms to societal
expectations. Based on Gender Schema Theory (GST), once
children know their own gender they become motivated to
learn more about gender. Children develop their gender
schemas through exposure to information about gender from
their environment (e.g., through parents, peers, media), and
through their own experiences. They then use gender
schemas to organize the information and to guide their
future behavior. The use of gender schemas to guide behav-
ior has been confirmed in studies of novel objects (e.g.,
kitchen tools) in which researchers varied gender labels for
the objects (e.g., other girls really like this toy). Children
paid more attention to and played more with objects labeled
for their gender than objects labeled for the other gender
(e.g., Bradbard et al. 1986; Martin et al. 1995).
More recently, cognitive approaches have been expanded
to provide a framework for understanding variability in
children’s gendered behavior (e.g., activity preferences)
across social contexts (Martin 2000; Durkin 2005). As an
extension of gender schema theory, Martin (2000) suggested
that children may develop broader theories of gender (i.e., a
“naïve social psychology”) that guide children’s interpreta-
tion of social environments. The main tenets of this idea are
that children develop “within-group similarity” theories
(girls are the same) and “between-group differences” theo-
ries (girls and boys are different) and that these gender
essentialist theories inform children’s decisions about how
to act in various social situations. Ruble et al. (2004) also
suggested that this type of intergroup process or a collective
identity likely guides children to behave in gender consis-
tent ways. According to these ideas, children may act in
gender-consistent ways when with a group of same-gender
peers and in gender-inconsistent ways when with other-
gender peers because of their assumptions about the social
context. Based on these ideas, we would expect that children
would modify their behavior depending on the gender of
their social partners. Specifically, we would expect that
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
children would have a tendency to behave in gender-
consistent ways but that these tendencies would be moderated
by expectations of one’s play partner activity preferences.
Given the findings from the research by Fabes and col-
leagues, we might also expect children’s tendency engage in
different activities in various social contexts to be moderat-
ed by children’s own gender. In support of this idea, Durkin
(2005) suggested that the interaction between gender
schemas and intergroup processes are differentiated by gen-
der. Durkin suggested that boys have more rigid gender
schemas and a stronger desire to solicit positive social
evaluations than girls. For example, in a UK study where
64 children (ages 4–9 years) were asked to show their
activity preferences once alone and once in front of a group
of same-gender peers, researchers showed that young boys
were particularly gender-typed in their activity preferences
in front of the peer audience (Banerjee and Lintern 2000).
Based on the ideas presented in this section and on
previous research, we expected some similarities and some
differences between girls and boys. Grounded in previous
research and GST, we expected that in a situation where
children are playing alone, such as during solitary play, both
girls and boys would engage in gender-typed activities (e.g.,
feminine for girls) at higher rates than they engage in
gender-atypical activities. Similarly, we would expect that
relative to solitary play, when playing with same-gender
peer groups, girls and boys would increase engagement in
gender-typed activities. However, we expected more varia-
tion between girls and boys during play with other-gender
peer groups. Specifically, research by Fabes et al. (2003)
and Durkin’s (2005) perspective on the interaction between
child gender and GST suggest that when playing with other-
gender peers, girls but not boys would be expected to
engage in gender-atypical activities (e.g., masculine) at
higher rates than during solitary play. Additionally, boys
but not girls would be expected to engage in even more
gender-typed activities (i.e., masculine) during play with
other-gender peers than during solitary play. As suggested
by previous research we also expected that in mixed-gender
peer groups both girls and boys would increase levels of
engagement in neutral activities. Finally, previous research
suggests that teachers spend more time in feminine activities
than other activities and girls and boys are more likely to
play with activities when teachers are present in the play area.
Accordingly, we expected that, during interactions with teach-
ers, girls and boys would engage in more play with feminine
activities than they would during solitary play.
We suggest that variability in activity choices across
situations may be due to children’s developing theories of
gender and their perceptions of social environments. Unfor-
tunately, most research has treated gender-typed differences
in play preferences as a stable attribute and only a few
studies have considered variability due to social context.
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
The present research contributes to the literature by provid-
ing additional evidence concerning variability in activities
across social contexts.
Present Study
In the current study we explored how the social context in
preschool impacts girls’ and boys’ masculine, feminine, and
neutral activity choices. To expand upon the research con-
ducted by Fabes et al. (2003), we compared children’s
behavior in various social contexts with their behavior in
solitary play, allowing us to assess the degree to which
social situations contribute to variability in children’s play.
We also expanded the types of social contexts studied by
considering how children behave with teachers. Understand-
ing how children’s activity preferences vary when with
teachers is important because teachers’ ability to influence
children’s activity preferences may have implications for
practice (Oettingen 1985; Tomes 1995). In summary, the
present study builds on the Fabes et al. (2003) study by
examining children’s gender-typed activity preferences in a
variety of social contexts including peers and teachers.
Furthermore, the study expands upon the earlier research
by comparing children’s preferences in social contexts to
their preferences in solitary play.
The first goal of this study was to explore the degree to
which boys and girls exhibit gender-typed activity preferences
when engaged in solitary play. For these analyses the depen-
dent variable was within-subject differences between levels of
play in feminine, masculine, and neutral activities during the
solitary play context. Based on theory and previous research,
two hypotheses were developed to address this goal.
H1 Activity involvement would be largely gender-typed dur-
ing solitary play, such that boys would play with mascu-
line activities more than with feminine activities, and girls
would play with feminine activities more than masculine
activities.
H2 Based on previous research suggesting that girls play
with feminine and neutral activities at equally high
rates, girls were also expected to play with neutral
activities more than masculine activities.
The second goal of this study focused on understanding
the degree to which preschoolers’ involvement in mascu-
line, feminine, and neutral activities changed as a function
of their preschool social context. Analyses comparing girls’
and boys’ activity preferences when playing with male-,
female-, and mixed-gender peer groups, and teachers rela-
tive to preferences in solitary play allowed us to examine the
influence of these differing classroom contexts. In these
analyses, the dependent variable was within-subject change
in the levels of play in feminine, masculine and neutral
439
activities across social contexts. We expected that children’s
social contexts would either increase or decrease their base-
line play tendencies, depending on the identity of the social
partner and children’s own gender. Given that most research
and theory regarding variability in children's gender-typed
activity preferences across social situations focus on femi-
nine and masculine activities, the majority of the following
hypotheses also focus on feminine and masculine activities.
Research by Fabes et al. (2003), however, provides some
support for expected changes in neutral activity engagement
for children when playing with mixed-gender peer groups.
Separate hypotheses were made regarding many possible
effects for children within each social context. When no a
priori hypothesis was made, this was also noted.
H3 Consistent with theory and research, girls were expected to
increase levels of engagement in feminine activities and
decrease levels of engagement in masculine activities dur-
ing play with female peers relative to rates of feminine and
masculine activity engagement during solitary play. No a
priori hypotheses were made for girls’ engagement in
neutral activities when playing with female peers relative
to their neutral activity engagement during solitary play.
H4 Due to the rigidity of boys’ gender schemas and to
findings from previous research, boys were expected to
increase levels of engagement in masculine activities
during play with female peers relative to levels of mas-
culine activity engagement during solitary play. No a
priori hypotheses were made for boys’ engagement in
feminine or neutral activities when playing with female
peers relative to their feminine and neutral activity en-
gagement during solitary play.
H5 During play with male peers, however, girls and boys were
both expected to increase levels of engagement in mascu-
line activities and decrease levels of feminine activity
engagement relative to levels of engagement in masculine
and feminine activities during solitary play. No a priori
hypotheses were made for girls’ or boys’ engagement in
neutral activities when playing with male peers relative to
their neutral activity engagement during solitary play.
H6 Although theory is lacking to guide this hypothesis,
based on previous research, play with mixed-gender
peer groups was expected to increase engagement in
neutral activities compared to neutral activity engage-
ment in solitary play for girls and boys. No a priori
hypotheses were made for girls’ or boys’ engagement
in feminine or masculine activities when playing with
mixed-gender peer groups relative to their feminine and
masculine activity engagement during solitary play.
H7 Guided by research and theory, we expected that inter-
actions with teachers would increase girls’ and boys’
play with feminine activities and decrease play with
masculine activities relative to their levels of engagement
440 Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451

with feminine and masculine activities in solitary play. Table 1 Demographic characteristics
No a priori hypotheses were made for girls’ or boys’ Girls Boys
engagement in neutral activities during interactions with
teachers relative to their neutral activity engagement # % # %
during solitary play.
Ethnicity
African-American 7 5.30 % 11 8.30 %
Anglo-American 11 8.40 % 10 7.50 %
Method
Native American 2 1.50 % 2 1.50 %
Participants Asian 3 2.30 % 2 1.50 %
Hispanic 93 71.00 % 99 74.40 %
Participants were preschool children enrolled in 18 Head Other 3 2.30 % 2 1.50 %
Start classrooms in an urban southwestern city in the US. Unknown 12 9.20 % 7 5.30 %
Classrooms were selected in collaboration with Phoenix and Marital status
Maricopa County Head Start Programs, and families were Married, never divorced 55 51.80 % 45 38.80 %
recruited 2–3 weeks into the start of the academic school Divorced 6 5.40 % 10 9.90 %
year at pre-arranged parent meetings. Consent rates were Separated 5 5.40 % 5 5.00 %
99 % at recruitment (N0308 out of a possible 311). Children Widowed 0 0 1 0.80 %
who were chronically absent or who left in the fall semester Single, never married 13 11.60 % 21 18.20 %
were dropped from the analyses (n028). Children who Together, never married 25 25.00 % 30 24.80 %
repeated preschool during years 2 and 3 of data collection Other 1 0.80 % 2 2.50 %
(n016) had data collected twice; only data from the second Socioeconomic status
year was used in analyses to prevent dependencies. The Under 10,000 17 17.00 % 25 25.00 %
final sample consisted of N0264 preschoolers (M age0 10–20,000 44 42.90 % 32 29.50 %
52 months; range: 37–60 months). Approximately half of 20–30,000 13 21.00 % 31 29.50 %
the participants were girls (49.6 %). The ratio of girls to 30–40,000 10 11.40 % 11 9.80 %
boys per classroom ranged from 31 % to 62 % girls, and 40,000 plus 8 7.70 % 7 6.30 %
85 % of the teachers were female. The majority of partic-
ipants (73 %) were Mexican or Mexican-American, most of Girls and boys did not significantly differ on any demographic char-
acteristics, ts(215–262)0−.61 to 1.37, p>.05
whom were Spanish-speaking; 62 % of the participants
primarily spoke Spanish. The remaining participants were
Anglo-American (8 %), African-American (7 %), and other and semi-structured class activities (e.g., a limited choice
(12 %). Participants were predominately of low socioeconom- between activities) were included in the analyses. Observa-
ic status (82 % earned below $30,000 per year). Almost half of tions which occurred during teacher structured large or small
the children (45 %) came from two-parent married families, group activities were not included in analyses as these times
with the remaining children from single parent homes (see do not reflect children’s freedom of choice for peers or activi-
Table 1 for a full breakdown of participant demographic data ties. Trained classroom observers (8–10 per year; 92 % female)
by child gender). Independent-samples t-tests were conducted focused on individual children in a random order for 10 s and
to examine gender differences on the demographic variables. recorded children’s primary play activity using a checklist of 29
Independent-samples t-tests examining gender differences available activities, including masculine (e.g., balls and bikes),
revealed no significant differences between girls and boys feminine (e.g., kitchen and dress-up), and gender-neutral activ-
on any of the demographic variables. ities (e.g., board games and sensory activities; see Appendix for
a complete list and description of activities). Observers also
Procedures and Measures recorded the nature of children’s social contexts. For the pur-
pose of the present study, relevant social context codes includ-
As part of a larger investigation, data were collected using an ed: playing alone (solitary play), playing with teachers, playing
observation protocol in which children were observed indoors with male peers, playing with female peers, or playing with
and outdoors several times per week, in 10-second segments, both male and female peers. To be coded as an interaction with
over the fall and spring semesters of preschool. This method a peer or teacher, there had to be a verbal or physical exchange
has been used successfully to document preschool children’s during the 10-sec observation. Unoccupied behaviors (e.g.,
activities and play partners (see Martin and Fabes 2001). Only child is alone with lack of focus or intent) were also coded.
those observations that occurred during free-play (e.g., chil- A total of 42,615 observations were collected for this
dren freely decide what to do, with whom, and where to do it) sample (M0134 observations per child, SD065; range0
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451 441

30–325). The large range in observations recorded for each
child was due to differences in attendance and availability of
the children. Only 7 % of the sample had fewer than 100
observations. To determine reliability, two observers inde-
pendently coded the same child’s behavior. Based on 6,481
simultaneous observations (15 % of all observations), kappas
were .81 for solitary play, .80 for play with males, .80 for play
with females, .82 for play with mixed-gender peer groups, and
.91 for interactions with teacher codes and .92 for feminine,
.87 for masculine, and .90 for neutral activity codes.
Categorization of Social Context
differences in each of the 29 individual activities using
independent-samples t-tests (with modified degrees of free-
dom, to correct for heterogeneity in variances; see Table 2).
One advantage of this method of classifying activities is
that play categories are derived directly from the sample
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the proportion of time spent in each
activity across all social contexts
Child Gender
Girls Boys

The social contexts of interest were solitary play, play with Activity M SD M SD
male, female-, and mixed-gender peer groups or dyads, and
interactions with teachers. Children were coded as engaged Feminine
in solitary play if the target child was playing alone and Art 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.04
engaging in either “constructive” play (e.g., building, color- Music 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
ing, reading a book) or “nonconstructive” play (e.g., jump- Puzzle 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03
ing, bouncing a ball, playing with a toy in a repetitive Books 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02
manner). Times when children were transitioning between Writing 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
activities, onlooking (i.e., watching other children play), or Phone 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
unoccupied behavior (i.e., lack of focus or intent) were not Dress-up 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
included in the coding of solitary play. Categorization of Kitchen 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02
social context was based on with whom a target child was Pretend Feminine 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.01
playing, not based on the composition of the group as a Figure Play Feminine 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01
whole. This approach has been consistently used in the Masculine
literature and allows for the distinction between mixed- Balls 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
gender and other-gender play (Colwell and Lindsey 2005; Bikes 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06
Fabes et al. 2003). For example, if a target girl was playing Blocks 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.06
with one or more girls, this would be classified as play with Computer 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.05
females. If a girl was playing with one or more boys, this Toy Animals 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03
would be classified as play with males. Alternatively, if a target Toy Vehicles 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04
girl was playing with at least one boy and at least one girl, this Pretend Masculine 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
would be classified as mixed-gender peer group play. Using Figure Play Masculine 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
codes for the five social contexts (solitary play, play with male, Figure Play Neutral 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
female and mixed-gender peer groups, and interactions with Neutral
teachers) separate data files were created for each of the social Clay 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
contexts at the non-aggregated level. Data were then aggregat- Board Games 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
ed within each file. This allowed for the computation of Digging 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03
gender-typed activity preferences based on observations in Large Motor 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00
each specific context. After all variables were created, the five Math/Science 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00
separate context specific data files were remerged for analyses. Other 0.10 0.05 0.11 0.06
Pretend Neutral 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Calculation of Feminine, Masculine, and Neutral Activity Sensory 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03
Scores Snack 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02
TV 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Proportion scores for frequency of involvement in an activ-
ity (e.g., balls) divided by total observations across all T-tests were used rather than an overall MANOVA due to data dependen-
activities were created for each of the 29 individual activi- cy in the activity variables, such that activities sum to 1 resulting in a lack
of variance from which to estimate group differences (Tabachnick and
ties, this method is consistent with methods used in previous Fidell 2006). Activities categorized as Feminine or Masculine significantly
research (Martin and Fabes 2001). To classify the activities differ between girls and boys at p<.05. Mean values are based on propor-
as feminine, masculine, and neutral, we tested for gender tion scores ranging from 0 to 1. df for t-tests ranged from 130 to 260.71.
442 Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451

(Connor and Serbin 1977). Ten activities were categorized
as feminine (art, music, puzzles, books, writing, phone,
dress-up, kitchen, pretend feminine, figure play feminine),
ts(151.25–260.69) ranged from −12.34 to −1.97, ps<.05,
and nine activities were categorized as masculine (balls,
bikes, blocks, computer, toy animals, toy vehicles, pretend
masculine, figure play masculine, figure play neutral), ts
(140.36–260.71) ranged from 3.06 to 9.57, ps<.01. The
remaining 10 activities were categorized as neutral (clay,
board games, digging, large motor, math/science activities,
other, pretend neutral, sensory, snack, tv), ts(132–260.21)
ranged from −1.85 to 1.72, all ns (see Table 2 for activity
means by child gender). Composite scores for each activity
category (feminine, masculine, neutral) were created for
each child by totaling the number of observed times children
engaged in each play activity (e.g., art+books+music, etc.)
in each category (e.g., feminine) and dividing by the total
number of times they engaged in all 29 activities within the
relevant context. For example, the number of times a child
engaged with each of the 11 feminine play activities in the
context of playing with girls was summed and divided by the
sum of the number of times that child engaged in all 29
activities while playing with girls. In this example, the com-
posite reflects the proportion of feminine activities the child
engaged in while playing with girls out of all activities en-
gaged. To assess the number of times children engaged in
feminine, masculine, and neutral activities within each social
context, the denominators alternately represented the total
number of times children engaged in all activities in play with
male peers, female peers, mixed- gender peers, and with
teachers, resulting in a total of 12 variables.
To assess children’s tendencies to engage in each type of
activity in solitary contexts, similar scores were calculated
using the proportions of times children engaged in activities
while in solitary play as the denominator (for this, we also
included children’s interactions during unoccupied play in
the denominator to ensure that the three gender-typed activ-
ity scores—feminine, masculine, neutral—did not sum to 1).
Thus, separate composite scores were computed for child-
ren’s engagement in feminine, masculine, and neutral activ-
ities while playing alone. The descriptive statistics for all
composite scores can be seen in Table 3.
To compare children’s activities during solitary play and
each of the social contexts, difference scores were computed
by subtracting the activity composite score in solitary play
from the same activity composite score in each of the social
play contexts. For example, the score representing engagement
in feminine activities in solitary play was subtracted from the
score representing engagement in feminine activities with male
peers. Similarly, the score representing engagement in femi-
nine activities in solitary play was separately subtracted from
the score representing engagement in feminine activities with
female peers, and so on. (For the creation of difference scores,
we removed unoccupied play from the denominator for the
solitary play activity composite scores to ensure comparability
in denominators prior to calculating difference scores.) These
difference scores represented the degree to which children’s
engagement in gender-typed activities varied as a function of
context. Thus, for example, if a child received a positive
difference score for engaging in dress up when playing with
female peers, this indicated that the child played more dress up
when with female peers than when in solitary play. Difference

Table 3 Mean scores and standard deviations for each activity in each context

Context

Activity Solitary Male peers Female peers Mixed-gender peer groups Teacher

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Girls
Feminine 0.35 0.12 0.19*** 0.16 0.32* 0.13 0.25*** 0.24 0.27*** 0.13
* *** ***
Masculine 0.24 0.13 0.28 0.21 0.17 0.11 0.18 0.20 0.07*** 0.07
Neutral 0.40 0.13 0.35* 0.20 0.33*** 0.11 0.47** 0.26 0.32*** 0.14
Boys
Feminine 0.18 0.09 0.08*** 0.06 0.15* 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.23*** 0.15
Masculine 0.43 0.15 0.45 0.15 0.27*** 0.19 0.29*** 0.25 0.13*** 0.11
Neutral 0.38 0.13 0.33*** 0.14 0.39 0.21 0.47*** 0.26 0.30*** 0.15

Mean scores in each social context that were significantly different from mean scores in solitary play indicated using asterisks (see text for statistics,
ts (130–132)01.98–22.73). Mean values are based on proportion scores ranging from 0 to 1
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
scores were used in the overall analyses examining gender-
typed activity preferences across social contexts. The use of
difference scores, although controversial, is necessary in these
analyses as they provide meaningful information about the
direction of change across contexts (Maguire 1999).
Results
The goal of the study was to assess how children’s tendencies
to engage in gender-typed activities (feminine, masculine, and
neutral) during preschool differed according to the social
context of play with peers and teachers. Before making these
comparisons, children’s patterns of play when alone were
examined. Subsequently, we used children’s gender-typed
activity preferences in solitary play as a baseline (i.e., child-
ren’s baseline tendencies to engage in gender-typed activities)
and examined the degree to which engagement in gender-
typed activities varied as a function of their social context
(play with male peers, with female peers, with mixed-gender
peer groups, interactions with teachers).
Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine the de-
scriptive statistics, skew and kurtosis of all activity variables
in all contexts (feminine, masculine, neutral; play with male
peers, with female peers, with mixed-gender peer groups,
interactions with teachers). For all created activity variables,
skew and kurtosis were low, indicating all variables were
normally distributed (Tabachnick and Fidel, 2006).
Additionally, independent-samples t-tests were conducted
to examine ethnicity and SES differences on the study varia-
bles (i.e., gender typed activities and social contexts) and by
child gender. Independent-samples t-tests examining ethnicity
differences revealed that Hispanic and non-Hispanic children
did not significantly differ on any of the activity variables in
any social context, ts(262)0range .05 to 1.7, ps>.05. Addi-
tionally, there were no differences in ethnicity between girls
and boys (see Table 1 for analyses by child gender). Results
also revealed that high and low poverty children did not
significantly differ on any study variables including activities
within social contexts, ts(202)0range .02 to 1.8, ps>.05. Ad-
ditionally, there were no differences in SES by child gender
(see Table 1 for analyses by child gender). Given that ethnicity
and SES differences were not found for any of the study
variables, neither ethnicity nor SES were used as control
variables in analyses testing the main study hypotheses.
Analyses of Gender-Typed Activities in Solitary Play
We first addressed the hypotheses that (1) for girls and
boys activity play while alone would be largely gender-
443
typed (e.g., feminine for girls) and (2) girls would play
with neutral activities at higher rates than masculine
activities. To do this, we conducted a repeated measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one between-subjects
factor (gender of child: boy, girl) and one within-subject
factor (activity category within solitary context: feminine
activities, masculine activities, neutral activities). The
sphericity assumption was not met, resulting in a loss of
power, so the Huynh-Feldt correction was applied (Huynh
and Feldt, 1976). Results revealed a significant gender of
child by activity category interaction, F(1.85, 484.35)0
89.82, p<.001. Simple effects tests were done for each
gender separately. For both genders, the main effect for
activities was significant, for girls, F(2, 260) 091.01,
p<.001; for boys, F(1.6, 211.27)035.54, p<.001. Again,
the sphericity assumption was not met, so the Huynh-
Feldt correction was applied.
To compare children’s play patterns for different
types of activities, Tukey’s HSD test (within-subjects)
was used to make pairwise comparisons of activities.
The Huynh-Feldt corrected mean square error and
degrees of freedom were used in calculating the HSD
critical values. Effect sizes for these comparisons were
calculated using the d statistic. The interpretation of this
index suggests that a d of .20 is a small effect, d of .50
is a medium effect, and a d of .80 or greater is a large
effect (Cohen 1988; Rosnow and Rosenthal 1989).
These analyses provided support for the hypothesis that chil-
dren play with gender-consistent activities during solitary
play. During solitary play, girls engaged most in feminine
activities (M0.30, SD0.11) and neutral activities (M0.34,
SD0.12); the difference between these was not significant.
As expected, girls engaged in feminine and neutral activities
significantly more than masculine activities (M 0.20,
SD0.11), ps<.01, and the effect sizes for these were large,
ds01.22 and .91 respectively. Boys engaged in masculine
activities during solitary play (M0.37, SD0.14) significantly
more than in feminine activities (M0.15, SD0.09) and neutral
activities (M0.32, SD0.12), ps<.05, effect sizes were large
and small; ds01.87 and .38, respectively.
Analyses of Gender-Typed Activities Across Social
Contexts
To address the second goal of this study, the social contexts
of children’s play were explored and the five remaining
hypotheses were tested (H3–H7). A repeated measures anal-
ysis of variance was conducted on the difference scores for
each type of activity using one between-subjects factor
(gender) and two within-subject factors, play context (play
with male peers, with female peers, with mixed-gender peer
groups and interactions with teachers) and activity category
(feminine, masculine, neutral; see Table 4). The sphericity
444
Table 4 Repeated measures analysis of variance in activity difference
scores across context
Source df F with teacher) and solitary play. For these analyses, to im-
I. Solitary Analyses
Activities 1.85, 484.35 37.89*
Activities X Gender 1.85, 484.35 89.82*
II. Context Analyses
Activities 1.92, 502.53 17.31*
Activities X Gender 1.92, 502.53 14.29*
Activities X Context 4.71, 1233.29 55.74*
Activities X Gender X Context 4.71, 1233.29 5.42*
Degrees of freedom adjusted using Huyn-Feldt correction
*p<.001
assumption was not met, so the Huynh-Feldt correction was
again applied. There was a significant main effect for activ-
ity category, F(1.98, 517.36)0122.92, p<.001, and signifi-
cant two-way interactions for gender of child by activity
category, F (1.98, 517.36)012.17, p <.001, and activity
category by context, F(4.91, 1258.63)0105.37, p<.001.
However, these were subsumed by a significant three-way
gender of child by activity category by context interaction, F
(4.91, 1258.63)04.94, p<.001. Simple effect analyses of the
3-way interaction were done by testing for the two-way
interaction between activities and context for each gender
separately. For both girls and boys, there were significant
two-way interactions of activities and context, F(4.38,
569.96)040.38, p<.001 and F(4.9, 646.8)069.25, p<.001,
respectively.
Further simple effect analyses were conducted within
gender to examine whether the activity category effect
(e.g., feminine activity play) was significant within each
context (e.g., girls with male peers, girls with female peers,
etc.). For both girls and boys, there was a significant main
effect of activities when playing with male peers, F(2,
260)03.88, p<.05 and F(1.86, 244.85)07.02, p<.001, re-
spectively. The activity effect was also significant for both
girls and boys when playing with female peers F(2, 260)0
53.85, p<.001 and F(1.98, 260.89)050.47, p<.001, respec-
tively; when playing with mixed-gender peer groups, F
(1.89, 245.69)05.56, p<.005 and F(1.94, 256.65)023.68,
p<.001, respectively; and when interacting with teachers F
(1.93, 251.03) 0132.75, p < .001 and F(1.94, 256.15) 0
366.23, p<.001, respectively. To probe these interactions,
paired t-tests were conducted to compare patterns of child-
ren’s activity preferences (e.g., feminine) during each social
context (e.g., play with female peers) to the same activity
during solitary play.
Specifically, for each gender-typed activity category
(feminine, masculine, neutral), a comparison was made
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
between each social context (when playing with male peers,
female peers, mixed-gender peer groups, and interacting
prove interpretability, the gender-typed composite scores for
feminine, masculine, and neutral activities were used rather
than difference scores. For example, the mean proportion of
observations with feminine activities in each social context
(when playing with male peers, female peers, mixed-gender
peer groups and interacting with teacher) was compared to the
mean proportion of observations with feminine activities
when in solitary play. Because the focus was on exploring
how involvement in feminine, masculine, and neutral activi-
ties varied by social context and child gender, the results are
organized by social context. Effect sizes for these comparisons
were calculated using the d statistic. The descriptive statistics
for the proportion scores reported here can be seen in Table 3.
Play with Female Peers
Recall that for girls, play with female peers was
expected to increase levels of engagement in feminine
activities and decrease levels of engagement in mascu-
line activities relative to rates of feminine and masculine
activity engagement during solitary play (H3). Contrary
to H3, the paired t-test analyses revealed that there was
no significant difference between girls’ engagement with
feminine activities during solitary play versus feminine
activity engagement when playing with female peers.
However, in support of H3, girls’ engagement with
masculine activities occurred significantly less when
playing with female peers (d0.44) than when engaged
in solitary play, t(130) 05.0, p < .001. Although no a
priori hypotheses were made regarding girls’ engage-
ment in neutral activities when playing with female
peers relative to neutral activity engagement in solitary
play, engagement with neutral activities occurred significant-
ly less when playing with female peers (d0.48) than when
playing in solitary play, t(130)05.41, p<.001.
Because boys have more rigid gender schemas and
because of findings from previous research, it was
expected that during play with female peers, boys
would increase levels of engagement in masculine ac-
tivities relative to levels of masculine activity engage-
ment during solitary play (H4). Contrary to our
hypothesis, boys’ engagement with masculine activities
occurred significantly less when playing with female
peers (d 0.79) than when playing in solitary play,
t(132)09.07, p<.001. For boys, no a priori hypotheses
were made regarding engagement in feminine or neutral
activities when playing with female peers relative to
feminine and neutral activity engagement in solitary
play. Nonetheless, it was found that boys’ engagement
in feminine activities occurred significantly less often
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
when playing with female peers (d0.17) than during
solitary play, t(132)01.98, p<.05. There was no signif-
icant difference in levels of engagement in neutral ac-
tivities relative to solitary play for boys when playing
with female peers.
Play with Male Peers
For girls and boys, play with male peers was expected
to increase levels of engagement in masculine activities
and decrease levels of feminine activity engagement
relative to levels of engagement in masculine and fem-
inine activities during solitary play (H5). Hypothesis 5
was fully supported for girls and partially supported for
boys, Specifically, girls’ engagement with masculine
activities occurred significantly more when playing with
male peers (d0.19) than when engaged in solitary play,
t(130)02.1, p < .05. Contrary to our hypothesis, there
was no significant difference in the proportion of boys’
masculine activity engagement relative to solitary play
when playing with male peers. However, engagement in
feminine activities occurred significantly less during
play with male peers than during solitary play, for girls
(d0.89) and boys (d0.94), ts(130 and 132)010.02 and
10.49, respectively, ps<.001. Again, no a priori hypoth-
eses were made for girls’ or boys’ engagement in neu-
tral activities when playing with male peers relative to
their neutral activity engagement during solitary play.
Surprisingly, however, the proportion of engagement
with neutral activities occurred significantly less often
when playing with male peers than during solitary play
for girls (d0.23) and boys (d0.31), ts(130 and 132)0
2.59 and 3.58, ps<.05 and .001, respectively.
Play with Mix-Gender Peer Groups
Play with mixed-gender peer groups was expected to in-
crease engagement in neutral activities compared to neutral
activity engagement in solitary play for girls and boys (H6).
In line with this hypothesis, girls’ engagement in neutral
activities occurred significantly more in mixed-gender peer
groups (d0.25) than when observed in solitary play, t(130)0
2.7, p<.01. Similarly, boys’ engagement with neutral activ-
ities occurred significantly more when playing with mixed-
gender peer groups (d0.35) than when engaged in solitary
play, t(132)0−3.71, p<.001. There were also a number of
significant findings for girls’ and boys’ engagement in fem-
inine and masculine activities during play with mix-gender
peer groups relative to their engagement in feminine and
masculine activity engagement during solitary play that
were not expected. For girls, engagement in feminine activ-
ities (d0.53) and masculine activities (d0.29) occurred sig-
nificantly less during play with mixed-gender peer groups
445
than when playing alone, ts(130)04.09 and 3.25, respec-
tively, ps<.001. Similar to the finding for girls, and unex-
pectedly, the proportion of boys’ engagement in masculine
activities was less during mixed-gender peer group interac-
tions relative to when they played alone (d0.59), t(132)0
6.55, p<.001. There was no significant difference in levels
of engagement in feminine activities relative to solitary play
for boys when playing with a mixed-gender peer groups.
Interactions with Teachers
Guided by previous research, we expected that interac-
tions with teachers would increase girls’ and boys’ play
with feminine activities and decrease play with masculine
activities relative to their levels of engagement with fem-
inine and masculine activities in solitary play (H7). Con-
trary to our expectation, however, girls’ engagement in
feminine activities was significantly less likely to occur
during interactions with teachers (d01.38) than it was to
occur in solitary play, t(130)015.77, p<.001. Girls’ en-
gagement with masculine activities also occurred signifi-
cantly less when interacting with teachers (d01.13) than
when playing in solitary play, t(130)012.36, p<.001, as
expected. Consistent with H7, boys’ engagement in fem-
inine activities occurred significantly more when interact-
ing with teachers (d02.20) than when engaged in solitary
play, t(132)03.846, p<.001. Furthermore, boys’ engage-
ment with masculine activities occurred significantly less
when interacting with teachers (d02.21) than when play-
ing in solitary play, t(132)022.73, p<.001. Surprisingly,
given that no hypotheses were made regarding neutral
activities, for girls (d0.42) and boys (d0.46), engage-
ment with neutral activities occurred significantly less
when interacting with teachers than when playing in
solitary play, ts(130 and 132)04.81 and 5.28, respectively,
ps<.001.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to investigate preschool
children’s gender-typed activity preferences and how
these varied across different preschool contexts–solitary
play, play with female peers, male peers, play with
mixed-gender peer groups, and interacting with teachers.
Both girls and boys in this study preferred gender-
typical activities to gender-atypical activities (e.g., girls
preferred feminine activities) when in solitary play.
However, children’s preferences for gender-typed activi-
ties were found to vary in strength depending upon their
social contexts.
Overall, the findings of the present study generally were
consistent with gender-schema theories, previous research,
446
and the study hypotheses. Girls and boys tended to prefer
gender-typed activities when playing alone. Relative to sol-
itary play, play with male peers increased children’s play
with masculine activities, play with mixed-gender peer
groups increased play with neutral activities, and interac-
tions with teachers increased play with feminine activities.
Contrary to our hypotheses, boys did not engage in more
masculine activities during play with female peers relative
to solitary play as was expected based on previous
research and the rigidity of their gender schemas. We
discuss the implications of these findings for children’s
skill development.
Activity Engagement in Solitary Play
Because preschool children spend 25–40 % of their free
time playing by themselves (Rubin et al. 1978), it is
important to identify what children are doing when they
are alone. The findings of the study confirmed that both
girls and boys engaged in gender-typed play when play-
ing alone. Girls engaged in feminine activities signifi-
cantly more than masculine activities during solitary
play, and boys engaged in masculine activities signifi-
cantly more than feminine activities during solitary play.
Moreover, for boys but not girls, engagement in gender-
typed activity play was more common than engagement
in neutral play activities. In other words, boys played
with masculine toys and activities more than they played
with any other type of toy or activity. Girls, however,
engaged in feminine and gender-neutral activities at rela-
tively equal rates and at rates that surpassed their play in
masculine activities.
These findings are consistent with cognitive perspec-
tives of gender development and a number of studies
showing that, from a young age, boys prefer masculine
activities and girls prefer feminine activities (see Ruble et
al. 2006). Although the findings are consistent with other
studies, the present study is unique in that it documented
young children’s gender-typed play preferences over sev-
eral months in a preschool setting in which a wide
variety of gender-typed and non-gender typed toys were
available and separately assessed children’s engagement
with activities during solitary play.
Most prior studies have assessed young children’s toy
preferences while children were engaged in play with
parents, siblings, or other individuals (e.g., researchers,
peers), without considering whether and how the social
partner may impact those preferences (Caldera et al.
1989; Connor and Serbin 1977; Eisenberg et al. 1984;
Green, et al. 2004; Levy 1994; Powlishta et al. 1993;
Serbin and Connor 1979). Moreover, in the few prior
studies in which children were studied while playing
alone, children have been limited to brief play episodes
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
at home or in the laboratory, with a limited set of play
materials available and for a limited period of time
(Campbell et al. 2002; Roopnarine 1986; Servin et al.
1999). In the present study, although children’s solitary
play was embedded within the preschool classroom,
during solitary play children were not directly interact-
ing with peers or teachers. The use of solitary play
allowed for a baseline level of children’s activity pref-
erences in a natural environment during a time when chil-
dren are not being encouraged to play with a toy by peers or
adults. Nonetheless, it is possible that children in the preschool
setting may be more likely to conform to gender roles in their
activity choices due to the presence of peers and teachers who
are nearby in their classroom. Further research is needed to
explore whether solitary play in preschool differs from solitary
play in a home or lab setting.
There were interesting and important variations in
girls’ and boys’ tendencies to engage in gender-neutral
activities during solitary play. As expected, girls en-
gaged in neutral activities almost as often as they en-
gaged in feminine activities whereas boys spent most of
their time during solitary play in masculine activities
only. These findings are consistent with those reported
by Cherney et al. (2003) in which girls played with
neutral and feminine activities at equally high rates,
whereas boys primarily played with masculine activities.
Additionally, our findings conform to other findings that
suggest that boys play more with gender-typed activities
and they are less flexible in their activity preferences
than girls (Fabes et al. 2003; Green et al. 2004; Powlishta et al.
1993). As a result, we might expect that girls experience
greater diversity in opportunities for social and cognitive skill
development.
Activity Engagement Across Social Contexts
Even if children show preferences for gender-typed ac-
tivities when alone, they may have opportunities for
exposure to a wider range of activities, especially
counter-stereotypic activities, when interacting with
others, including other-gender peers and teachers. From
the perspective of promoting skill development, experi-
ences with peers and teachers that increase children’s
engagement in gender-atypical and neutral activities may
be important because different types of activities (i.e.,
feminine, masculine, and neutral) have been shown to
promote different skills. For example, consistent engage-
ment in masculine activities may expose children (often
boys) to a narrow range of academic experiences that
are associated with masculine activities (e.g., spatial
skill development), potentially limiting academic skill
development thought to be associated with feminine or
gender-neutral activities (e.g., literacy skill development;
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
Serbin and Connor 1979). Thus, engagement with a
variety of interactional partners may increase engage-
ment in a variety of activities. It is for this reason that
it is important to examine how children’s gender-typed
activity preferences change as a function of the social
context in which they are engaged.
Overall, the findings suggested that the social context
encourages children to engage in different activities than
they would select during solitary play, and the patterns
are generally consistent with cognitive theories of gen-
der development. For both girls and boys, play with
neutral activities occurred more when interacting with
mixed-gender peer groups than when playing alone.
This finding confirms the idea that children develop
theories about each gender so that when girls and boys
interact with a group of children that includes both
genders, children may choose activities that are enjoy-
able for both genders. The present findings also illus-
trate the social contexts (i.e., male peers and teachers)
most likely to promote gender-atypical activity engage-
ment. Because these data are correlational, one might
argue that gender-atypical activity preferences motivate
children to play with other-gender peers (or vice versa),
but the comparison of solitary play to social contexts
suggests otherwise. For example, for girls, engagement
in masculine activities increased relative to solitary play
only during interactions with male peers (other-gender
peers). For boys, engagement in feminine activities in-
creased relative to solitary play when interacting with
teachers but not during play with female peers. Based
on GST, the results for boys playing with girls were
surprising. The boys did not increase their feminine
play as we might predict if they changed their behavior
based on expectations about what girls like to do.
There were other surprising findings. Based on re-
search conducted by Fabes et al. (2003), we hypothe-
sized that boys’ engagement with masculine activities
would increase during play with female peers relative to
solitary play. The present findings, however, did not
support this hypothesis. Rather, boys in the current
study did not engage in significantly more masculine
activities when playing with female peers, relative to
their levels of masculine activity engagement during
solitary play. It is possible that other factors come into
play when boys play with girls. For instance, boys may
recognize that they are more successful in exerting
power over girls than girls are able to with them, and
so boys are able to continue to engage in masculine
activities (and so do girls) and not to engage in femi-
nine activities. This interpretation is bolstered by the
studies of influence in children in preschool in which only
teachers (not female peers) were successful at exerting influ-
ence over boys’ activity preferences (Serbin et al. 1982).
447
Implications for Children’s Skill Development
Despite the correlational nature of our data, the findings
from the current study suggest that when interacting
with peers and teachers, children were exposed to a
greater range of activities than what they are when they
played alone. Girls played significantly more with mas-
culine activities when they were engaged with male
peers. This suggests that, for girls, playing with boys
facilitates their engagement in a different set of activi-
ties, and many of these activities are thought to be
associated with the development of spatial skills, math-
ematics, and motor skills. For example, Serbin and
Connor (1979) found that for preschool-aged children,
high levels of play in masculine activities and low
levels of play in feminine activities were related to the
development of spatial abilities. Additionally, masculine-
typed activities (such as playing with balls and bikes)
have been linked with supporting gross motor develop-
ment (Pellegrini and Smith 1998).
For boys, play with feminine activities was increased
during interactions with teachers. Teachers appear to
encourage boys to engage in activities that are thought
to be associated with skill development in other areas
different from those related to masculine activities. Spe-
cifically, feminine-typed activities such as pretend play
have been related to coordinated social play with peers,
and engagement in feminine activities such as writing
and reading books has been shown to support language,
literacy, and fine motor development (Bredekamp and
Copple 1997).
The findings also suggest that during mixed-gender
interactions, girls and boys played with more neutral
activities. Unfortunately, little research exists examining
the relations between children’s engagement in gender-
neutral activities and their skill development; however,
hypotheses regarding general flexibility and skill devel-
opment could be made. For example, research has
shown that flexibility in adolescents’ extracurricular ac-
tivity involvement predicts positive social and academic
outcomes (Fredricks and Eccles 2006). Thus, we might
expect that greater flexibility or variability across pre-
school gender-typed activities would predict greater so-
cial and academic abilities.
The idea that having a range of behaviors, or being
psychologically androgynous is associated with healthy
outcomes was promoted by Bem (1981). Bem argued
that psychological androgyny in personality was consid-
ered ideal because it allowed individuals to have both
the ability to act in masculine and feminine ways. For
children, having a wide range of activity exposure may
be the ideal, because it would allow children to acquire
a broader repertoire of skills through their activities
448
(Serbin and Connor 1979) but little research has been
conducted on this topic. However, in one recent study,
both gender-typicality and flexibility of play partners
and activities positively predicted preschool children’s
social and cognitive adjustment (DiDonato et al.
2012). The findings of the present study suggest multi-
ple routes to developing a broad skill set. One route is
to encourage children to try many different activities,
such as encouraging children to try out different sports
and games. Interestingly though, for girls and boys,
interactions with teachers decreased activity play over-
all. Thus, another route to activity exposure is to en-
courage children to broaden their social contexts, so that
they spend more time in settings with same- and other-
gender peers rather than with teachers and adults. Fur-
thermore, the present findings suggest that gender
researchers should pay attention to variability and how
settings impact variability in gender typing.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
A primary consideration for the interpretation of the
present results is that the sample is not representative
of the larger population. Previous research on children’s
gender-typed activity preferences primarily focused on
non-Hispanic white middle class students. The majority
of children in this study were Mexican or Mexican-
American, used Spanish as their primary language, and
came from lower socioeconomic status families. These
sample characteristics could influence the results. Spe-
cifically, in Hispanic families, researchers have shown
that parents are more traditional in gender attitudes and
the degree to which they socialize their children in
gender-typical ways (Adams et al. 2007). This tradition-
alism may translate into encouraging children to play
with gender-typed toys and activities (e.g., masculine
for boys). In this way, the children may have entered
preschool with more gender-typical activity preferences
than what would be expected in other populations. Fu-
ture research should replicate the current study by ex-
amining children’s preschool gender-typed activity
preferences in different samples.
A second limitation to consider when interpreting the
results of this study is the gender of the researchers and
teachers. The majority of observational coders and
teachers were female. It is possible that the gender
similarity between the researchers and teachers biased
the behavior of both parties (e.g., Pellegrini et al. 2011).
A more rigorous design would have equal numbers of
male and female researchers and teachers and each
possible combination of researcher-teacher gender would
be included.
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
Although the current research examines the gender-
typed activities children prefer in different social con-
texts, the direction of effects for these associations are
not well understood. The findings in the present study
only indicate the degree to which children’s engagement
with gender-typed activities varied relative to engage-
ment in solitary play. However, the relation between
activity participation and social context could conceiv-
ably operate in two directions. It could be the case that
children choose peer partners with similar gender-typed
activity preferences or children choose peer partners
regardless of activity preferences and consistent engage-
ment with peers over time make preferences for gender-
typed activities more similar. In fact, recent work
showed that both selection and influence effects occur
between children’s peer and activity preferences (Martin
et al. in press). Further research on the ways that
children are drawn to each other and influence each
other in activity engagement would be useful for fur-
thering understanding of social context effects.
Aside from causality, another issue that should be
considered is the types of specific activities within each
context and how specific activities may drive varied
behavior across social contexts. For example, children
may be willing to engage in a certain degree of gender-
atypical activity play depending on the activity. Within
both feminine and masculine activity categories there
are activities that could conceivable be considered
“more” gender-typed than others. For example, a boy
might be willing to play with art but less willing to play
with dolls, both feminine activities in the present study. In a
similar vein, children may utilize gender-atypical activities in
gender-typical ways. For example, a girl may play with
blocks, a masculine activity, but use them to build a house
for her doll. Future research should consider the possibility of
more nuanced variations in children’s activity engagement
across social situations.
In conclusion, the goals of the present study were to
describe preschool boys’ and girls’ gender-typed activity
preferences during solitary play, and to describe how
activity preferences differ from solitary play when chil-
dren engage with various play partners. Consistent with
previous research, both girls and boys in this study
preferred gender-typed activities (e.g., girls preferred
feminine activities) when they were engaged in solitary
play. Findings also showed that children engaged in
different activities than they would select during solitary
play depending on the identity of their interactional
partners (i.e., peers and teachers). Results from this
study suggest that engagement in a variety of preschool
social contexts may provide children with different
learning opportunities through engagement in a greater
variety of gender-typed activities.
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451 449

Appendix

Table 5 Description of gender-

typed activities Category Activity Name Description

Feminine
Art materials crayons, paints, glue, other art materials
Music musical instruments, singing, dancing
Puzzles any type of puzzle
Books any type of book
Writing writing letters or words; different from arts and crafts
Phone telephone; no theme involved
Dress -up pretend clothes, accessories, make-up; no theme involved
Kitchen kitchen props; no theme involved
Pretend feminine nurse, mommy, teacher, waitress, etc.
Figure play feminine feminine figurines such as dolls
Masculine
Balls any type of ball
Bikes any type of bike, wheeled riding toys
Blocks blocks, Lincon Logs, Legos
Computer computer
Toy animals toy animal figurines, stuffed animas
Toy vehicles trucks, planes, cars, busses, helicopters, etc.
Pretend masculine doctor, superhero, fire fighter, policeman, etc.
Figure play masculine masculine figurines such as action figures
Figure play neutral neutral figurines such as Fisher Price figures
Neutral
Clay clay, play dough, goop
Board Games any type of board game or games with rules
(i.e. cards games such as UNO or Monster Mash);
this does not include educational games or
physical games like Duck-duck goose
Digging digging in a sandbox
Large Motor running, climbing, swinging, duck duck goose, ring
around the rosie, etc.
Math/Science flashcards, counting manipulatives, science experiments,
test tubes
Other any activity that could not be categorized as tone of the
listed activities
Pretend neutral animals, monsters, etc.
Sensory sand, water, beans, rice, shaving cream, etc.
Snack any type of meal (e.g., breakfast, snack, lunch)
TV television programs, short videos, or movies

References Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex

Adams, M., Coltrane, S., & Parke, R. D. (2007). Cross-ethnic applica-
bility of the gender-based attitudes toward marriage and child
rearing scales. Sex Roles, 56, 325–339. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-
9174-0.
Banerjee, R., & Lintern, V. (2000). Boys will be boys: The effect of
social evaluation concerns on gender-typing. Social Development,
9, 397–408. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00133.
typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354-354-364. doi:10.1037/
0033-295X.88.4.354
Berenbaum, S. A., Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2008). Gender
development. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Advanced child
and adolescent development (pp. 647–696). New York: Wiley.
Bradbard, M. R., Martin, C. L., Endsley, R. C., & Halverson, C. F. (1986).
Influence of sex stereotypes on children’s exploration and memory:
A competence versus performance distinction. Developmental Psy-
chology, 22, 481–486. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.4.481.
450
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Caldera, Y. M., Huston, A. C., & O’Brien, M. (1989). Social inter-
actions and play patterns of parents and toddlers with feminine,
masculine, and neutral toys. Child Development, 60, 70–76.
doi:10.2307/1131072.
Campbell, A., Shirley, 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, 479–498. doi:10.1348/026151000165814.
Campbell, A., Shirley, L., & Caygill, L. (2002). Sex-typed preferences
in three domains: Do two-year-olds need cognitive variables?
British Journal of Psychology, 93, 203–217. doi:10.1348/
000712602162544.
Cherney, I. D., Kelly-Vance, L., Glover, K. G., Ruane, A., & Ryalls, B.
O. (2003). The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play
assessment in children aged 18-47 months. Educational Psychol-
ogy, 23, 95–105. doi:10.1080/01443410303222.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. (1977). Behaviorally based masculine-
and feminine-activity-preference scales for preschoolers: Corre-
lates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child
Development, 48, 1411–1416. doi:10.2307/1128500.
Colwell, M. J., & Lindsey, E. W. (2005). Preschool children’s pretend and
physical play and sex of play partner: Connections to peer compe-
tence. Sex Roles, 52, 497–509. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3716-8.
DiDonato, M. D., Martin, C. L., Hessler, E. E., Amazeen, P. G.,
Hanish, L. D., & Fabes, R. A. (2012). Gender consistency and
flexibility: Using dynamics to understand the relation between
gender and adjustment. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and
Life Sciences, 16, 159–184.
Durkin, K. (2005). Children’s understanding of gender roles in society.
In M. Barrett & E. Buchanan-Barrow (Eds.), Children’s under-
standing of society (pp. 133–167). London: Psychology Press.
Eisenberg, N., Tryon, K., & Cameron, E. (1984). The relation of
preschoolers’ peer interaction to their sex-typed toy choices.
Child Development, 55, 1044–1050. doi:10.2307/1130156.
Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2003). Young children’s
play qualities in same-, other-, and mixed-sex peer groups. Child
Development, 74, 921–932. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00576.
Fagot, B. I. (1978). Reinforcing contingencies for sex-role behaviors:
Effect of experience with children. Child Development, 49, 30–
36. doi:10.2307/1128589.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Extracurricular involvement
and adolescent adjustment: Impact of duration, number of activ-
ities, and breadth of participation. Applied Developmental Sci-
ence, 10, 132–146. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads1003_3.
Golombok, S., Rust, J., Zervoulis, K., Croudace, T., Golding, J., &
Hines, M. (2008). Developmental trajectories of sex-typed behav-
ior in boys and girls: A longitudinal general population study of
children aged 2.5–8 years. Child Development, 79, 1583–1593.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01207.x.
Green, V. A., Bigler, R., & Catherwood, D. (2004). The variability and
flexibility of gender-typed toy play: A close look at children’s
behavioral responses to counterstereotypic models. Sex Roles, 51,
1583–1593. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000049227.05170.aa.
Holmes-Lonergan, H. (2003). Understanding of affective false beliefs,
perceptions of parental discipline, and classroom behavior in
children from head start. Early Education and Development, 14,
29-29-46. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1401_3
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L.S. (1976) Estimation of the Box correction for
degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and
split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69–82.
doi:10.2307/1164736
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
Levy, G. D. (1994). Aspects of preschoolers’ comprehension of indoor
and outdoor gender-typed toys. Sex Roles, 30, 391–405.
doi:10.1007/BF01420600.
Maccoby, E. E., Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood. In
H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior
(Vol. 20, pp. 239–287). San Diego: Academic.
Maguire, M. (1999). Treating the dyad as the unit of analysis: A primer
on three analytic approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 61, 213–223. doi:10.2307/353895.
Martin, C., & Ruble, D. N. (2009). Patterns of gender development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 353–381. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.093008.100511.
Martin, C. L. (2000). Cognitive theories of gender development. In T.
Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psy-
chology of gender (pp. 91–121). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (2001). The stability and consequences
of young children’s same-sex peer interactions. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 431–446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.431.
Martin, C. L., Eisenbud, L., & Rose, H. (1995). Children’s gender-
based reasoning about toys. Child Development, 66, 1453–1471.
doi:10.2307/1131657.
Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing
model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Develop-
ment, 5, 1119–1134. doi:10.2307/1129498.
Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L., Leonard, S., & Dinella, L. M.
(2011). Experienced and expected similarity to same-gender
peers: Moving toward a comprehensive model of gender segre-
gation. Sex Roles, 65, 421–434. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0029-y.
Martin, C.L., Schaefer, D., Kornienko, O., Hanish, L.D., Fabes, R.A.,
& Goble, P. (in press). The Role of Sex of Peers and Gender-
Typed Activities in Young Children’s Peer Affiliative Networks:
A Longitudinal Analysis of Selection and Influence. Child
Development.
McHale, S. M., Kim, J., Whiteman, S., & Crouter, A. C. (2004). Links
between sex-typed time use in middle childhood and gender
development in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology,
40, 868–881. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.868.
O’Brien, M., & Huston, A. C. (1985). Activity level and sex-
stereotyped toy choice in toddler boys and girls. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 146, 527–533.
Oettingen, G. (1985). The influence of the kindergarten teacher on sex
differences in behavior. International Journal of Behavioral De-
velopment, 8, 3–13. doi:10.1177/016502548500800102.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The
nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Develop-
ment, 69, 577–598. doi:10.2307/1132187.
Pellegrini, A. D., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., Dupruis, D., Mickey, M.,
Roseth, C., & Soberg, D. (2011). An empirical examination of
sex differences in scoring preschool children’s aggression. Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 232–238.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.003.
Powlishta, K. K., Serbin, L. A., & Moller, L. C. (1993). The stability of
individual differences in gender typing: Implications for under-
standing gender segregation. Sex Roles, 29, 723–737.
doi:10.1007/BF00289214.
Roopnarine, J. L. (1986). Mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors toward the
toy play of their infant sons and daughters. Sex Roles, 14, 59–68.
doi:10.1007/BF00287848.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the
justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psy-
chologist, 44, 1276–1284. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.10.1276.
Rubin, K. H., Watson, K. S., & Jambor, T. W. (1978). Free-play
behaviors in preschool and kindergarten children. Child Develop-
ment, 49, 534–536. doi:10.2307/1128725.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W.
Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th
Sex Roles (2012) 67:435–451
ed.: Vol 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp.
933–1016). Hoboken: Wiley.
Ruble, D. N., Alvarez, J. M., Bachman, M., Cameron, J. A., Fuligni, A.
J., Garcia Coll, C., & Rhee, E. (2004). The development of a
sense of “we”: The emergence and implications of children’s
collective identity. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The develop-
ment of the social self (pp. 29–76). East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Ruble, D. N., Martin, C. L., & Berenbaum, S. A. (2006). Gender
development. In Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., & Lerner, R. (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology, 6th ed.: Vol 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (pp. 858-932). Hoboken: Wiley.
Serbin, L. A., & Connor, J. M. (1979). Sex-typing of children’s play
preferences and patterns of cognitive performance. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 134, 315–316.
451
Serbin, L. A., Connor, J. M., & Citron, C. C. (1981). Sex-differentiated free
play behavior: Effects of teacher modeling, location, and gender. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 17, 640–646. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.5.640.
Serbin, L. A., Sprafkin, C., Elman, M., & Doyle, A. (1982). The early
development of sex-differentiated patterns of social influence. Ca-
nadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des
Sciences Du Comportement, 14, 350–363. doi:10.1037/h0081269.
Servin, A., Bohlin, G., & Berlin, L. (1999). Sex differences in 1-, 3-, and
5-year-olds’ toy-choice in a structured play-session. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 40, 43–48. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00096.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins
Tomes, R. E. (1995). Teacher presence and child gender influences on
children’s activity preferences in preschool settings. Child Study
Journal, 25, 123–140.