Why gender neutral toy aisles might help children’s development stay on target


In a press release earlier this month, Target corp. announced that it would no longer have separate sections for girls’ toys and boys’ toys, and that the current gendered color-coding would be removed from their aisles. The declaration has been met with a mixed reception. Opponents to the switch claim that Target is being overly politically correct and believe that the store is catering to a small minority of individuals who do not identify with cisgender roles (Venker, 2015). Yet psychological research suggests that deconstructing the gendered toy aisles might actually be developmentally beneficial for children of all genders.

Girls vs Boys: How Toys Influence Cognitive Development

Children’s toys are gendered. Boys are expected to play with red fire trucks and blue spaceships, while girls are expected to play with pink dolls and purple tea sets. These differences reflect what are often considered ‘traditional’ gender role expectations—the idea that girls should be nurturing, gentle and domestic, while boys should be aggressive, competitive, and exploratory (Clerkin & Cherney, 2006).

However, research shows that gendered toys do more than promote gender roles, they also impact cognitive development. For instance, traditional ‘boy toys’ tend to promote spatial skills and object rotation—skills that are vital to success in college entrance exams, advanced math classes, and sports. Notably, research shows that the toys themselves may actually shape spatial abilities. Doyle and colleagues asked over 400 adults about their childhood toy experiences and then had them complete several spatial manipulation tasks (Doyle, Voyer, & Cherney, 2012). The researchers found that for both men and women, childhood experiences playing with masculine toys and/or spatial toys predicted adult spatial ability and math test scores above and beyond biological sex. Thus, encouraging girls to play with masculine toys could help them overcome some of the gender gaps common in math and sports.

But it’s not only girls who can benefit from expanding their toy selection. Girl toys have been shown to promote verbal ability, creativity and complexity (Blakemore & Centers, 2005)—skills that are highly valued in today’s business world.  Again, research shows that both girls and boys tend to use more complex play when using female-typed toys (Cherney, Kelly-Vance, Gill, Ruane, Ryalls, 2003). Therefore, encouraging boys to play with traditionally feminine toys could help them speed up their cognitive development.

Gender Identity & Toy Selection: Why Labels Matter

For those who may think that gendered toy aisles have nothing to do with whether girls play with boy toys and vice versa, research suggests otherwise. Children learn about gender stereotypes and gender identity at around 2 years old, and start making gender-typed toy selections at about the same time (Cherney & Dempsey, 2010). Developmental Intergroup Theory suggests that this is because as gender becomes an important and salient part of young children’s identities, they become very invested in being a ‘good’ girl, or a ‘good’ boy, and thus start reinforcing the gender stereotypes that they have learned (Bigler & Liben, 2006). In fact, studies show there is a ‘hot potato effect’—children avoid toys that they believe are for the opposite gender, even when it’s a toy they enjoy (Blakemore & Centers, 2005). Similarly, attractive toys are rated as less appealing by children if they are labeled for the opposite gender (Martin, Eisenbud, & Rose, 1995).

So what happens if children do not know whether a toy is for a girl or a boy? Chances are, they will assume it is for them.  Cherney and Dempsey conducted a study in which they gave 3 to 5 year old children the chance to ‘free play’ for 10 minutes with a number of unlabeled gender neutral and gender ambiguous toys.  Gender neutral toys were rated by adults as not having any gender specific characteristics (e.g. a yellow school bus). Gender ambiguous toys were rated by adults as having characteristics of both girl and boy toys (e.g. a medical kit in a blue handbag). Afterwards, the researchers asked the children whether the toys were ‘for girls’ or ‘for boys’. Both girls and boys believed that the majority of the neutral and ambiguous toys were for their own gender. When asked why the toys were for their gender, most children did not have a concrete answer, generally stating ‘it just is’. However, among the answers that were given, color seemed to be the biggest determining factor.

What We Can Do: Let Toys be Toys

In sum, research suggests that by taking down their gender labels and color-coded aisles, Target is essentially giving children a wider range of toys that they will be comfortable exploring and playing with, and in turn, could help them develop a wider set of cognitive skills.

It is my hope that toy makers will follow Target’s lead, and start creating more gender neutral toys as well. In a study of over 100 toys, researchers found that strongly gender-typed toys were the least likely to support optimal childhood development, while gender neutral toys tended to be the most educational (Blakemore & Centers, 2005).

So next time you peruse a toy aisle, worry less about what toys are ‘supposed to be’ for boys or for girls, and think more about what cognitive skills the toy offers, and whether the child in question will actually enjoy it. Toys have the ability to open up children’s minds, increase their skillsets, and even influence their careers. Let’s not limit them.



Bigler, R.S. & Liben, L.S. (2006). A developmental intergroup their of social stereotypes and prejudice, In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. 34, 39-89. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Blakemore, J. E. O., & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of boys' and girls' toys. Sex Roles, 53(9-10), 619-633.

Clerkin, C., & Cherney, I. D. (2006, November). Where do children draw the line between pink and blue? Talk given at the Nebraska Psychological Society and Association for Psychological & Educational Research in Kansas Convention, Hays, KS.

Cherney, I. D., & Dempsey, J. (2010). Young children’s classification, stereotyping, and play behavior for gender neutral and ambiguous toys, Journal of Educational Psychology30(6), 651-669. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2010.498416

Cherney, I. D., Kelly-Vance, L., Glover, K., Ruane, A., & Ryalls, B. O. (2003). The effects of stereotyped toys and gender on play-based assessment in 18-48 months old children. Educational Psychology, 23,95-106. doi: 10.1080/01443410303222

Martin, C. L., Eisenbud, L., & Rose, H. (1995). Children's Gender‐Based Reasoning about Toys. Child Development66(5), 1453-1471.

Venker, S (2015). How Target just roved Donald Trump right about something. Time.com. Retrieved from: http://time.com/3992485/target-gender-neutral-policy-and-political-correctness/