The Transforming Toybox
Examining the U.S. Infant Toy Market•

Brenna Hassinger-Das, Rebecca Schwartz, Mari
Tavdgiridze, Nayrovi Mercedes, Marie Salerno,
Nowou Cyrielle Talla Takoukam, Joshua
Gamzehlatova, Jennifer M. ZoshThe authors examined technological and traditional infant toys to understandthe U.S. toy market facing today’s care givers. They found significant differences in the two types of toys in terms of their developmental targets—with
more traditional toys aimed at physical development and more technologicaltoys aimed at cognitive development. Given that the toy market is so vastand that technological toys sometimes come with considerable costs, theyargue for the need to understand more precisely how toys are marketed toprevent exploitation based on the pursuit of a so-called “brainy baby.” Keywords: educational toys; gender-specific toys; developmental toys; technicaltoys; traditional toys; toy marketing

From motor milestones to language acquisition and developing social

relationships, the experiences that happen during infancy set the stage for the
rest of our lives (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 2015). In
particular, play (both with and without physical toys) is, according to research,an essential component of infancy, which significantly affects an infant’s physical,
cognitive, and socioemotional development (Healy, Mendelsohn, and Council
on Early Childhood 2019; Landry et al. 1998; Ruff and Rothbart 1996). At thesame time, care givers’ perceptions and beliefs, as well as the ways in which toys
are marketed (Al Kurdi 2017; Hassinger-Das et al. 2021), have an impact on
the types of toys that care givers purchase for their children (Boe and Woods,2018). This leads us to two important questions: what do the toy boxes of today
contain, and how well do today’s toys promote child development as evidenced
from play research?
Toys designed for young children made up approximately 10 percent of the
U.S. toy market in 2021, which was valued at approximately $38.2 billion (TheToy Association 2022). Despite the broad impact of and the high demand fortoys for infants from birth to twenty-four months of age, America’s toy indus14

American Journal of Play, Volume 15, number 1 © 2023 The Strong
Contact Brenna Hassinger-Das at bhassingerdas@pace.edu

The Transforming Toybox

try often does not consult experts in child development when designing toys
(Gardner et al. 2012). Indeed, although research is limited, extant evidence aboutcare giver and child use of technologically “enhanced,” battery-operated toys
can result in significantly different interactions than those with traditional toys
(Bergen et al. 2009; Zosh et al. 2015).
We aim to expand the literature examining the marketplace for technological and traditional toys in the United States, specifically for toys that target
the infant population from birth to twenty-four months, given the long-lasting
impact that this early stage has on an infant’s future development.

Technological Versus Traditional Toys
For decades, research has suggested that toys play a unique role in supportingchildren’s play activities (Rubin and Howe 1985). Primarily, traditional, nonelectronic toys foster three types of play: pretend play, object play, and physical play
(Hassinger-Das et al. 2017). In pretend play with dolls or figurines, for example,
children take on roles and develop an understanding of the minds and feelingsof others (Youngblade and Dunn 1995). Play with objects, such as building
blocks, helps children develop spatial skills (Verdine et al. 2017) and allows
them to express themselves creatively (Trawick-Smith et al. 2015). Finally, toys
used in physical play, including play with balls in such sports as basketball andsoccer, both supports children’s physical health and fosters the development of
their motor skills (Hassinger-Das et al. 2017). With traditional toys, researchsuggests that children’s cognitive and language development are significantly
impacted by care givers providing toys (as well as shared book readings). The
presence of toys also affects how mothers talk with their children while playing(Tomopoulos et al. 2006).
At the same time, the number of technological toys in the marketplace
continues to increase, and these toys are often marketed as educational, eventhough this term is not subject to any meaningful definition (Hassinger-Das
and Hirsh-Pasek 2019; Healey, Mendelsohn, and Council of Early Childhood
2019; Jennings and Cook 2021). The research regarding technological toys suggests that the technological enhancements have implications for care giver–childinteraction and play behaviors (Healey, Mendelsohn, and Council of Early Childhood 2019; Wooldridge and Shapka 2012), quality of language used and natureof topics (Zosh et al. 2015), and overall attention, gestures, and vocalizations

15

16

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYduring play (Miller et al. 2017). Research suggests that children have fewer
opportunities to engage in pretense and direct their activities when playing withtechnological toys than with traditional toys (Bergen et al. 2009). Some featuresof technological toys can also distract from their intended educational purposes;
for example, toy speech and noises can detract from play focused on supporting
spatial skills (Zosh et al. 2015).
According to a study by Sosa (2016), the quality of verbal interaction,
including care giver words, conversational turns, and care giver responses, waslower during play with technological toys compared to play with traditional
toys. In another study, researchers found that play with technological toys elicited less language interaction between mothers and children during play and alower quality of overall interaction measured by responsiveness, teaching, andencouragement than traditional toys (Wooldridge and Shapka 2012). It may bethat traditional toys provide more flexibility in how care givers and their children
choose to play and thus facilitate more exploration.

How Do Care Givers Make Toy Purchasing Decisions?
But how do care givers decide whether to purchase technological or traditional
toys for their infants? Two major factors appear to affect care givers’ decisions
about what toys to purchase: environmental factors (including beliefs aboutparenting, emotional reactions, child preferences, demographics, and culturalconsiderations) and toy marketing (including advertising materials, safety information, and cost) (Al Kurdi 2017; Fallon and Harris 2001; Fisher-Thompson
1993; Fisher-Thompson, Sausa, and Wright 1995; Freeman 2007; Magatef andMomani 2020; Martin. Eisenbud, and Rose 1995; Lam and Leman 2003; Okita
2004; Ruwindah and Handayani 2019).
Environmental Factors
Care givers develop their relationships with their infants based on past experiences and beliefs about parenting, relationships, and children in general. Theseexperiences and beliefs are also influenced by cultural factors, and they can havelong-lasting effects on the care giver–infant bond (Kochanska, Bolt, and Goffin 2019). One way in which care giver beliefs, attitudes, and preferences affectinfants concerns the types of toys care givers purchase (Michael Cohen Group2019) and how they use these toys to facilitate and support play (Chak 2007).

The Transforming Toybox

In particular, previous research has focused on how attitudes and beliefs
about gender influence the toy purchasing decisions made by care givers—and
how these purchases provide infants with some of their very earliest information about gender roles (Boe and Woods 2018). Beyond reinforcing genderstereotypes, playing only with same-gender toys might lead to male and female
children developing different skill sets (Weisgram 2018), such as female children’s play with baby dolls fostering nurturing behaviors (Leaper and Bigler
2018) and male children building spatial skills through puzzle play (Levine etal. 2012). As one result of these diverging skill sets, fewer females than males
pursue careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
occupations (Hill, Corbett, and St. Rose 2010).
Research with Indonesian parents suggests that the parents’ ages also influences how they view the role of gender in making toy decisions. Oktaviani and
Ichwan (2021) found that younger parents (those in their thirties) were more
likely to eschew gender-specific toys in favor of giving their children more choice
and opportunity to play with a wide variety of toys, whereas older parents (thosein their forties) were more likely to pick toys targeted for their child’s gender.
Care givers’ own gender socialization shapes the ways in which they purchase gender-typed toys for their children; in fact, gender stereotypes are reinforced when parents encourage children to play with only same-gender toys. In
a 2018 study, parents of children aged three to six and living in Austria indicatedthat same-gender and gender-neutral toys were better for their children to playwith than cross-gender toys (Kollmayer et al. 2018), which means that parents
found a male child playing with a baby doll less desirable than the same childplaying with a gender-neutral art kit. Similar findings have shown that parents
support male and female children playing with masculine and gender-neutral
toys but allow only female children to play with feminine toys (Campenni 1999;
Wood, Desmarais, and Gugula 2002). The research about how care giver perspectives impact toy selections and, in turn, impact infants’ experiences with genderprovides an important clue for fully understanding the potential effect of toys
on child development. In short, we must also understand care giver perspectives—and the factors that inform those perspectives.
Toy Marketing
In addition to environmental factors, care givers’ toy selections are also influenced by the ways in which toys are marketed (Hassinger-Das et al. 2021; Hogan
2007). Through product development and marketing, toy manufacturers and

17

18

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYretailers hope to foster consumer trust (Hogan 2007). To develop this trust,companies focus on areas such as safety, dependability, and attentiveness tocustomers’ wants and needs. This can look different depending on the product,but, for example, Hains detailed how Mattel attempted to increase trust (anddecrease brand resistance) by introducing the Fashionistas line of dolls in 2016as a counter to the issues many parents had with the traditional Barbie figure.
Mattel focused on media coverage, not to appeal to the children who would playwith the new dolls, but to show Millennial parents how the dolls aligned with
their values regarding representation and social justice (Hains 2021).
Jennings and Cook (2021) conducted case studies of toy manufacturer
Fisher-Price technological product lines and found that, by focusing marketingon the toys support of children’s development and growth, the brand fosters
parental trust and shows that technological toy play is integral to child development. Through this type of marketing, Fisher-Price and other toy companies
have played a pivotal role in positioning educational play as a critical ingredient
for a successful child (Sobe 2009). However, in general, many consumers are notoverly familiar with the toy industry, although marketing and media mentionsof recalls and negative incidents affect consumer trust and help shape purchasing decisions (Hogan 2007).
Gender-based marketing is one factor that has the potential to affect caregivers’ purchasing decisions. Sweet conducted a retrospective look at toy catalogs
throughout the twentieth century and found that gender-specific marketing
declined after the midtwentieth century, and, in fact, only 2 percent of toys in the1975 Sears catalog were noted as being either for boys or for girls. However, shecommented that toy marketing evolved in the later twentieth century (similar
to marketing techniques today) to feature more implicit gender cues, such as
using pink, purple, and pastel colors for girls and bold, bright, primary colors
for boys (Sweet 2013).
Another specific marketing-related factor affecting care givers’ purchasing
behavior is the cost of toys, though research suggests it may not be the mostimportant. Al Kurdi (2017) surveyed 252 Jordanian parents and found that, outof six factors (use related, emotional related, educational related, cost related,child demographics related, and parent demographics related) they rated costrelated factors second to last in importance for influencing their toy purchasing
decisions. The most important factors for parents were use related, such as safety,
durability, the ability of the toy to be used in multiple ways, the type of toy (i.e.,
doll, vehicle), and the length of time that their children would play with the toy.

The Transforming Toybox

Cost is one factor that likely differs greatly by care givers’ geographic location, cultural background, and socioeconomic status. For instance, a studyof Indonesian parents of children aged one to thirteen found that cost was a
top consideration (alongside attractiveness of packaging and the availabilityof knock-off or unlicensed versions of imported toys [Oktaviani and Ichwan,2021]).
Yet, a recent U.S. study also established that parents ranked cost as one of
the least significant factors they consider when buying a toy, while they identified educational qualities as the most important consideration. Richards andcolleagues also found that mothers of children aged twelve and younger in the
United States reported that they did not regularly use advertisements to get
information about what toys to purchase. Their preferred method involved using
internet reviews to determine the best toys to purchase. In fact, mothers rated
advertising and product catalogs as their least relied upon sources for this typeof information (Richards, Putnick, and Bornstein 2020).
However, Hassinger-Das and colleagues demonstrated that U.S.-based caregivers in their study can, in fact, be significantly influenced by retailers’ toy
descriptions. Care givers of infants up to twenty-four months of age were more
likely to select technological toys for infants of all ages after reading retailers’ toy
descriptions than before being exposed to information about toys’ developmental
benefits. Care givers were also more likely to agree with statements about theaccuracy of toy descriptions, the positive effects of toys on development, and thedevelopmental benefits of toys on their purchasing decisions after they read thetoy descriptions. The potential detrimental effects of technological toys makes
Hassinger-Das and colleagues’ finding that care givers were more likely to statethat they would purchase technological toys for their infants after reading retailers’ descriptions all the more stark. This finding highlights that it is critical for
retailers and manufacturers to report accurately the developmental benefits oftoys so that care givers can make choices backed by evidence about the benefits
versus potential drawbacks of technological toys (Hassinger-Das et al. 2021).
Al Kurdi (2017) also found that, in a Jordanian sample, parents indicatedthat they read toy advertisements and use them when deciding which toys topurchase. The results across these three studies suggest that exposure to retailers’ toy descriptions likely has significant effects on care givers’ decision-making
processes. However, it is worth noting that Oktaviani and Ichwan (2021) foundIndonesian parents in their thirties less likely to pay attention to toy information
and warnings online before purchasing than were older parents.

19

20

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Similarly, with parents of children under ten years of age in the UnitedStates, Gardner and colleagues found that parents were indeed influenced by
toy advertisements. Parents who viewed a toy advertisement highlighting a toy’s
benefits for brain development stated that social and cognitive development
were less important than parents who viewed an advertisement focused on childdevelopment more generally. The authors argued that parents were influenced by
the toy advertisements and that a narrow focus on brain development detracts
from parents’ ability to make connections between toy play and children’s developmental outcomes (Gardner et al. 2012).

The Present Study
Based on the research regarding the environmental and marketing factors that
influence care givers’ purchasing of traditional and technological toys, ourdescriptive study examines the U.S. marketplace for technological and traditional infant toys to understand how toys are marketed to care givers. We explore
the following questions: How are technological and traditional toys similar anddifferent in terms of intended gender specificity, educational claims, price, andtargeted developmental domain (i.e., physical, socioemotional, cognitive)? Are
toys marketed differently for retailers with differing customer bases?

Materials and Methods
In Fall 2020, we selected for study toys advertised for infants (from birth totwenty-four months) by two major national retailers with both in-person andonline shopping options that targeted individuals and families from different
socioeconomic backgrounds. The toys were viewed on the retailers’ websites
because recent research suggests that care givers most frequently purchase toys
online (Richards, Putnick, and Bornstein 2020), although the toy descriptions
featured by retailers came from the toy manufacturers. The average annual
income for a shopper at Retailer 1 was $76,000 (Hanbury 2020), and the customer base was approximately 70 percent White, 12 percent Black, 11.15 percent
Hispanic, and 3 percent other races (Statista 2020). The main competitors for
Retailer 1 were other mass retailers, dollar stores, fast food restaurants, and gas
and convenience stores (Patterson, 2020). For Retailer 2, the average annual

The Transforming Toybox

shopper income was $89,000, and the customer base was approximately 60 percent white, 10 percent Black, 20 percent Hispanic, and 10 percent other races(Statista 2018). The main competitors for Retailer 2 were other mass retailers,club retailers, pet stores, and beauty stores (Patterson 2020).
Per retailer, 176 toys were selected (N = 352; 176 traditional toys, 176
technological toys) for coding and analysis. Research assistants coded the firsteighty-eight traditional and eighty-eight electronic toys that appeared in searches
for toys for children twenty-four months or younger on each retailers’ website.
Toys were listed by their UPC code, and five duplicates were coded across theretailers. (All analyses were conducted with and without these five duplicates,
and they were retained in the dataset due to a lack of significant impact on
the findings as a result of their removal.) The variables of interest were: technological or traditional toy features, toy price (the nonsale price of the toy on
the retailer’s website), intended gender specificity, educational claims, and theprimary developmental domain addressed (physical, cognitive, or socioemotional). Setting power to .80, the study was powered to detect medium effects,
here reported as ηp2 =.06.
Toy Coding
We developed a coding scheme to categorize the toys based on the following
four categories: technological or traditional toy features, gender specificity,
educational claims, and the primary developmental domain targeted (physical, cognitive, or socioemotional; see figure 1 for examples). For the technological or traditional toy designation, toys were coded as technological if theyrequired batteries or needed to be plugged in. Toys without these requirements
were coded as traditional. Regarding gender specificity classification, toys werenoted as being targeted for male or female children only if the toy descriptions
mentioned specific genders or the toy was offered in different forms to target
genders differently (for example, the same blocks that came in blue or pink colors). For educational claims, if the description of the toy mentioned the words“learn,” “learning,” “teach,” “education,” or “educational” (as defined by parents
in Nelson-Rowe 1994), the toy was coded as featuring educational claims. To
capture the developmental domain, toys were coded based on the domain they
primarily addressed—for example, was the goal of the toy to have children playphysically (e.g., banging things around), cognitively (e.g., learn letters and numbers), or socioemotionally (e.g., interact with others)?
Coding was conducted by five research assistants who were trained for

21

22

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Figure 1

Figure1. Percentageof traditional and technological toys within each developmental domain.
Toy Coding
Category Examples
Category

Definition

Example Toys

Toy Features Technological

Toy requires batteries or Fisher-Price Deluxe Kick and Play Piano Gym; Fisher-Price Laughmust be plugged in to
and Learn On-The-Glow Coffee Cup; LeapFrog Musical Rainbow
operateTea Party; LeapFrog Speak and Learn Puppy; Bright Starts Rolland Glow Monkey

Toy FeaturesTraditional

Toy does not require
batteries or does notneed to be plugged in tooperate.

Infantino Go Gaga Wrist Rattles (Fox and Owl); Skip Hop Explore
and More Roll-Around Hedgehog; Fisher-Price Slow Much Fun
Stroller Sloth Toy; Sassy Drool and Chew Keys; Magic Years
Jungle Finger Puppet

Gender - Male

Toy description
mentions being
designed for males or
toy is featured in adifferent form tospecifically target males(e.g., blue version
versus pink version).

Play Baby Toys Magic Sleep, Blue; Disney Baby Lion King
Adventure Musical Baby Crib Mobile, Blue; Bright Starts Take
Along Carrier Toy Bar

Gender - Female

Toy description
mentions being
designed for females or
toy is featured in adifferent form tospecifically target
females (e.g., pinkversion versus blue
version).

V-Tech Light-Up Baby Touch Tablet, Pink; V-Tech Touch andLearn Musical Bee, Pink; Fisher-Price Princess Mommy Sweet
Dreams Storybook; LeapFrog Purrfect Counting Purse with
Interactive Teaching Tiara; Bedtime Originals Eloise Pink/Gray
Elephant Musical Crib Mobile

Educational
Claims - Yes

Toy description
mentioned the words“learn,” “learning,”“education,” or“educational.”

Fisher-Price Laugh and Learn Smart Stages Learn with Sis Walker;
Infantino Discovery Gem Activity Ball; Infantino Go Gaga Super
Soft 1st Building Blocks; Lamaze Pile and Play Stacking Cups;
Baby Einstein World Explorer Music Sensory Globe

Educational
Claims - No

Toy description did not
mention the words“learn,” “learning,”“education,” or“educational.”

Tiny Tukkins Plush Stuffed Character, Bunny; Evezo Bentley
Continental GT, Ride-on Push Car; Munchkin DuckDunk BathToy; Fisher-Price Ferris Wheel; Nuby Little Squirts, Bath Squirts

Developmental
Domain - PhysicalThe primary goal of the
toy was to playphysically, such as
banging things around.

Lamaze Grab and Hide Ball Baby Toy; Fat Brain Pop N Slide
Shelly Toy; Skip Hop Silver Lining Cloud Rainstick Rattle; VTech Baby Twist and Spin Lion Rattle; V-Tech Explore and Crawl
Elephant Plush Baby Toy

Developmental
Domain Cognitive

The primary goal of the
toy was to playcognitively, such aslearning letters andnumbers.

Dolce My First Owl Clock Stuffed Animal; Mushie Stacking Cups;
Bright Starts Lights and Color Driver Baby Learning Toy; Baby
Einstein Magic Touch Curiosity Tablet Wooden Musical Toy; VTech Roll and Discover Ball

Developmental
Domain Socioemotional

The primary goal of the
toy was to playsocioemotionally, suchas interacting with acare giver or peer ordeveloping emotions.

LeapFrog Musical Rainbow Tea Party; LeapFrog Chat and Count
Emoji Phone; LeapFrog Speak and Learn Puppy; Dolce Activity
Zebra Stuffed Animal; Bright Starts Explore and Cuddle ElephantThe Transforming Toybox

reliability, that is at least 90 percent agreement with the lead author (and master coder). Then, 20 percent of each coders’ toys were randomly selected andchecked for reliability against the lead author. All coders maintained at least 90
percent agreement with the master coder. Any discrepancies between the leadauthor and the research assistants were discussed and resolved.

Results
How Are Technological and Traditional Toys Similar and Different in Termsof Gender, Educational Claims, Price, and Development?
Using Pearson Chi-Squared tests, our analyses showed no significant differences
between technological and traditional toys based on gender, p > .25. In fact, very
few toys were explicitly targeted to specific genders (only 20 out of 352 total toys).
Differences did exist in terms of educational claims and targeted developmental
domain. A larger percentage of technological toys were designated as educational (70.3 percent) than traditional toys (56.3 percent), X2(1) = 7.231, p = .007.
Additionally, more traditional toys (84.3 percent) than technological toys (58.1
percent) targeted physical development. Finally, significantly more technological(37.4 percent) than traditional (9.6 percent) targeted cognitive concerns, but thepercentages of socioemotional toys were similar for technological (4.5 percent)and traditional (6.1 percent) toys, X2(2) = 39.178, p < .001 (see figure 1).
Next, we conducted an ANOVA (analysis of variance) examining toy price,
while considering technological status, educational designation, gender specificity, and developmental domain. We found no significant effects of technologicalstatus, educational designation, and gender specificity on toy price, ps > .061.
We did find that a toy’s developmental potential had a significant effect on toy
price, F(1, 330) = 7.080, p < .001, ηp2 = .041, with socioemotional toys being
significantly more expensive than both physical (p = .033) and cognitive toys(p = .025).
Are Toys Marketed Differently by Retailers with Differing Customer Bases?
Employing Pearson Chi-Square tests, we analyzed the proportion of technological compared to traditional toys by retailer—based on educational designation,
gender specificity, and developmental use. We found no significant differences
based on toy type between retailers for gender, ps > .347. Retailer 1 featured
significantly more technological toys marketed as educational than noneduca-

23

24

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYtionally marketed technological toys, X2(1) = 12.425, p < .001. We found no significant relation between educational claims and technological status at Retailer
2, p = .882.
Each retailer exhibited a similar pattern of differences between technological and traditional toys in regard to the three types of development (Retailer 1:
X2(2) = 16.345, p < .001; Retailer 2: X2(2) = 24.187, p < .001), with more traditional toys targeting physical development (Retailer 1 = 84.8 percent traditional
compared to 58.4 percent technological; Retailer 2 = 83.7 percent traditional
compared to 57.7 percent technological) and more technological toys aimed atcognitive development (Retailer 1 = 12.1 percent traditional compared to 37.7
percent technological; Retailer 2 = 7.1 percent traditional compared to 37.2
percent technological), with the percentage of socioemotional toys remaining
more similar for both technological and traditional toys (Retailer 1 = 3.0 percent traditional compared to 3.9 percent technological; Retailer 2 = 9.2 percent
traditional compared to 5.1 percent technological).
Finally, we conducted an ANOVA examining toy price, while considering
retailer, technological status, educational claims, gender specificity, and childdevelopment. We found the main effect of retailer not to be significant, noting
the average price of toys was higher at Retailer 2 ($24.45) compared to Retailer 1($20.30), F(1, 320) = 1.448, p = .230. We found a significant interaction between
gender and retailer, recording the average price of toys marketed for males as
significantly more expensive at Retailer 1 ($44.24 compared to $18.84) and toys
marketed for females as significantly more expensive at Retailer 2 ($47.74 compared to $18.05), F(1, 320) = 9.061, p < .001, ηp2 = .054. We found a significant
interaction between educational claims and retailer, noting the average price of
noneducational toys was significantly higher at Retailer 2 ($40.40 compared to$25.57) while educational toys were similarly priced by all retailers (Retailer 1= $19.75; Retailer 2 = $17.99), F(1, 320) = 12.283, p < .001, ηp2 = .037.

Discussion
The present study examined differences between technological and traditional
toys sold by two major retailers serving different consumer bases. Research hassuggested that technological toys might interfere with the amount and quality ofcare giver–child interactions and communication (Sosa 2016; Miller et al. 2017;
Wooldridge and Shapka 2012; Zosh et al. 2015) and provide fewer opportunities

The Transforming Toybox

to experiment or engage in self-directed play for children (Bergen et al. 2009),
all of which might affect children’s emotional self-regulation, language development, and learning processes, as well as the overall nature of their play.
Because ours was a descriptive study, we did not generate any initial hypotheses about how technological and traditional toys would differ based on genderspecificity, educational claims, price, and developmental intent. The results ofour study demonstrated significant differences in developmental targets, suggesting that for all retailers more traditional toys address physical development
and more technological toys target cognitive development .

Differences between the Marketing ofTechnological and Traditional Toys
Gender Specificity
We found no significant differences between traditional and technological toys
in terms of toy price, educational designation, or developmental domain basedon gender. However, toys targeted for males were more expensive at Retailer 1,
while toys targeted to females were more expensive at Retailer 2. It is worth noting that these findings should be interpreted cautiously, because only 5.7 percent
of toys were designated for a specific gender for both retailers (2.0 percent male;
3.7 percent female).
Most toys were described using gender-neutral terms, yet some genderspecific terms remain. For example, the Fisher-Price Princess Mommy Sweet
Dreams Storybook, a plastic toy with moving parts and an embedded story, stated,“As baby opens and closes the window, she’ll see a dreamy night sky and a sweet
princess looking back at her. ‘Peek-a-boo, Princess!’” Other gendered toys did notfeature gender-specific language but offered the same toy in different colors, likethe V-Tech Touch and Learn Musical Bee. This toy was offered in pink, in which
the bee also had long eye lashes, and in yellow, which did not have any eyelashes.
However, even though many retailers have moved away from explicit gender-based marketing, such as by removing “girl” and “boy” designations from toy
aisles (Masunaga 2015), children do not need explicit gender labels to have gender-based toy preferences. Halim and associates (Halim et al. 2014) found thatpreschool-aged children from diverse racial and socioeconomic backgrounds
demonstrated rigidity in their gender-related behaviors—girls wanting only towear pink and boys avoiding all “girly” clothes—that were not related to their

25

26

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

care givers’ gender-typed clothing preferences. The influence of gender rigidity
in children’s preferences for particular toys (and their care givers’ purchase of
these preferred toys) may thus be hiding in plain sight.
It might be that the lack of gender-specific marketing enables care givers tochoose a larger variety of toys for their children, because research suggests thatcare givers are less likely to select cross-gender toys (Kollmayer et al. 2018) andmore likely to select only masculine and gender-neutral toys for both male andfemale children (Campenni 1999; Wood, Desmarais, and Gugula 2002). Or it
could be that care givers still look for traditionally male- and female-coded toys,
such as dolls or pastel-colored and sparkly toys for girls and trucks and primarycolored and rugged toys for boys, without the need for gender-specific language
in toy marketing. This is an area ripe for future investigation, and these findings
should be considered exploratory, given our very stringent coding method, inwhich toys were coded only as targeting male or female children specifically if
the toy descriptions mentioned a specific gender or the toy was offered in different forms to target genders differently.
Educational Claims
Manufacturers’ descriptions highlighted educational claims about toys in different ways, from including “learning” in the name, like the Fat Brain Toys Dimpl
Baby and Toddler Learning Toy, to descriptions of the areas the toy will impact,
like the Bright Starts Mix and Match Sesame Street Wooden Stacking Toy, which
was described as encouraging “the development of fine motor skills as yourlittle one practices hand-eye coordination and spatial reasoning.” There wereno significant differences between the educational designations of technologicaland traditional toys by retailers. This is interesting because previous researchsuggests that care givers look specifically for educational features when making
toy purchases. Richards, Putnick, and Bornstein (2020) found that educational
qualities were the most important consideration when buying a toy among U.S.
mothers of children under twelve. Al Kurdi (2017) also found that educational
qualities—particularly toy features that foster creativity—were important to
Jordanian parents.
However, we found some differences between retailers. Noneducational
toys were more expensive at Retailer 2, while educational toys were similarly
priced at both retailers (Retailer 1 = $19.75; Retailer 2 = $17.99). Retailer 1 didfeature significantly more technological toys marketed as educational than not.
Retailer 1 targets a consumer base with a lower average annual income thanThe Transforming Toybox

Retailer 2, and this discrepancy in toys offered might relate to a larger trend in
the desires of families from different socioeconomic backgrounds regarding thedesirability of technology (Rideout and Robb 2020).
Although many wealthier families have pulled away from exposing young
children to technology, some lower income families have pushed for greater
access to technology for their children (Bowles 2018). In fact, lower-income
parents consider supporting their children’s education a major reason to adopt
new technology (Rideout and Katz 2016). In a survey of 1,440 U.S. parents ofchildren aged eight or younger, 38 percent of lower-income parents endorsed
the idea that technology helps their children learn “a lot,” as compared to only 17
percent of higher-income parents (Rideout and Robb 2020). This technologicaldivide might be one factor driving the differences between the two retailers interms of educational toy offerings.
Toy Price
Retailer 2 serves, on average, a higher socioeconomic consumer base, and accordingly, the mean price of toys was slightly higher at that retailer ($24.45) than at
Retailer 1 ($20.30). Regardless of retailer, socioemotional toys were more expensive
than both physical and cognitive toys. But socioemotional toys were the smallest
subset, and thus, these differences should be viewed cautiously. Yet, according toprevious research, the differences in price might not make a meaningful difference to parents in light of all the other considerations they make when selecting
toys for their children (Al Kurdi 2017; Richards, Putnick, and Bornstein 2020).
Developmental UsesAt both retailers, traditional toys more often targeted physical development thantechnological toys. Many traditional toys do require a variety of fine and grossmotor skills to operate. For example, to use the Fisher-Price 2-in-1 Flip and Fun
Activity Gym, infants need to reach and grab hanging toys, described by the toy
maker as: “Exciting toys [that] encourage your little one to reach, grasp, and bat,helping to develop important motor skills like dexterity and hand-eye coordination.” At the same time, infants more likely use technological toys when they
are sedentary, toys such as the V-Tech Light-Up Baby Touch Tablet that afford
infants the opportunity to “press the eight learning app buttons [to] introduce . . .
letters, shapes, counting, numbers, instruments, animals, first words, and music.”
Conversely, a significantly greater percentage of technological than traditional toys targeted cognitive development. This aligns with the idea that care

27

28

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYgivers adopt new technologies to support their children’s educational (and primarily cognitive) development (Rideout and Katz 2016). It remains to be seen
exactly how care givers view the links between technological toys and digital
media, but both technological toys and digital media have similar potential pitfalls. For example, research suggests that care givers are less physically responsive
and communicative when engaging in play with technological toys with theirchildren (Sosa 2016; Miller et al. 2017; Wooldridge and Shapka 2012; Zosh et al.
2015). Similarly, children learn more from digital media, such as videos and apps,
when they promote interaction between care givers and children (Hassinger-Das
et al. 2020; Lauricella et al. 2010).
The socioemotional toys we studied focused on play that involves interacting with a care giver or peer or that involves developing emotions. For example,
for the LeapFrog Musical Rainbow Tea Party, the description focused on interaction: “Your child can invite a friend over and have tea for two with the toys inthe set. The kids can pretend to pour their favorite flavored tea into cups and theteapot will magically empty out on its own.” The percentages of socioemotional
toys were similar across both technological and traditional toy types, althoughslightly more were traditional, which seems somewhat misaligned with researchthat suggests technological toys are less likely to encourage care giver–childinteraction and conversation (Sosa 2016; Miller et al. 2017; Wooldridge andShapka 2012; Zosh et al. 2015). However, the percentages of toys that primarily
support socioemotional development were so small for both toy types that it islikely these data were unable to capture any meaningful differences.
This does not mean that toy makers ignored socioemotional development,
it was just not their primary focus. They paid more attention to physical and cognitive concerns. For example, the Fisher-Price Little People Caring for Animals
Smart Stages play set mentions learning to care for animals in the description,
but the primary focus is on cognitive development by introducing “counting,colors, animal sounds, and more with three Smart Stages levels that grow alongwith your child.”

Limitations and Future Directions
One of the potential limitations of this study is our focus on the U.S. toy market.
We think it important to research the global toy market to see if similar patterns
prevail and how cultural and other contextual factors affect toy marketing in

The Transforming Toybox

different areas of the world. We also think it important to note that this study
was well powered to detect medium-effect sizes, but some of the effects we foundwere between small to medium in size. This leads us to caution readers wheninterpreting these particular findings.
Additionally, while several major retailers have removed gender-based toylabels (Masunagas 2015), just because the labels are removed does not meanthat the stereotypes are gone. Today, there are still aisles where you can findmostly pink toys and dolls, and other aisles containing primary-colored building
blocks and action figures. These aisles might not be labeled as “boys’ toys” and“girls’ toys,” but the toys can still be identified in this manner. The toys in thisstudy likely suffer from the same issue; a doll might not be labeled as targeting
female children, but care givers might still perceive it that way. Thus, it will be
important to research concerning care givers’ beliefs about how gender affects
their reactions to toy marketing and their purchasing decisions.
Finally, seeing how care givers’ own socialization shapes their purchasing
behaviors for gender-specific toys (Boe and Woods 2018), we wonder if a similar
pattern might occurr regarding affinity for technology, in which some care givers
are especially open to adopting new technology and others less so or not at all.
These previous experiences of care givers might interact with the marketing of
infant toys in many ways, and this requires additional investigation.

Conclusions
Given that the toy market is so vast, it is important for developmental researchers and the public to know exactly which toys are marketed to the care givers ofinfants. The technological revolution has taken every aspect of life by storm, andthe toy industry is no exception. This led us to ask how the changing landscapeof technological and traditional toys relates to gender, educational designation,
price, and child development. By investigating the toy market for infants withthese specific variables in mind, our findings offer a holistic view of today’s U.S.
toy landscape.

29

30

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

References
Al Kurdi, Barween. 2017. “Investigating the Factors Influencing Parent Toy Purchase
Decisions: Reasoning and Consequences.” International Business Research 10:104–
16. https:// doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v10n4p104.
Bergen, Doris, Kathleen Hutchinson, Joan T. Nolan, and Deborah Weber. 2009. “Effects
of Infant-Parent Play with a Technology-Enhanced Toy: Affordance-Related
Actions and Communicative Interactions.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 24:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540903439342.
Boe, Josh L., and Rebecca J. Woods. 2018. “Parents’ Influence on Infants’ Gender-Typed
Toy Preferences.” Sex Roles 79:358–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0858-4.
Bowles, Nellie. 2018. “The Digital Gap between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We
Expected.” The New York Times, October 26. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/
style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html.
Campenni, C. Estelle. 1999. “Gender Stereotyping of Children’s Toys: A Comparison of
Parents and Non-Parents.” Sex Roles 40:121–38.
Chak, Amy. 2007. “Teachers’ and Parents’ Conceptions of Children’s Curiosity andExploration.” International Journal of Early Years Education 15:141–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760701288690.
Fallon, Moira, and Mary B. Harris. 1989. “Factors Influencing the Selection of Toys for
Handicapped and Normally Developing Preschool Children.” Journal of Genetic
Psychology 150:125–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1989.9914584.
Fisher-Thompson, Donna. 1993. “Adult Toy Purchases for Children: Factors Affecting
Sex-Typed Toy Selection.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 14:385–
406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(93)90016-O.
Fisher-Thompson, Donna, Angela D. Sausa, and Terri F. Wright. 1995. “Toy Selection forChildren: Personality and Toy Request Influences.” Sex Roles 33:239–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544613.
Freeman, Nancy K. 2007. “Preschoolers’ Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy and
Their Parents’ Beliefs about Genderized Behaviors: Miscommunication, Mixed
Messages, or Hidden Truths?” Early Childhood Education Journal 34:357–66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-006-0123-x.
Gardner, Meryl P., Roberta M. Golinkoff, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Daniel Heiney-Gonzalez. 2012. “Marketing Toys without Playing Around.” Young Consumers 13:381–91.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17473611211282626.
Giddings, Martha, and Charles F. Halverson. 1981. “Young Children’s Use of Toys inHome Environments.” Family Relations 30:69–74.
Hains, Rebecca C. 2021. “The Politics of Barbie’s Curvy New Body: Marketing Mattel’s Fashionistas Line.” In The Marketing of Children’s Toys: Critical Perspectives
on Children’s Consumer Culture, edited by Rebecca C. Hains and Nancy A. Jennings, 265–83.
Halim, May Ling, Diane N. Ruble, Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Kristina M. Zosuls,
Leah E. Lurye, and Faith K. Greulich. 2014. “Pink Frilly Dresses and the Avoid-

The Transforming Toybox

ance of All Things ‘Girly’: Children’s Appearance Rigidity and Cognitive Theories
of Gender Development.” Developmental Psychology 50:1091–1101.
Hanbury, Mary. 2020. “This Is What the Average Walmart Shopper Looks Like.” Business
Insider, January 19. https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-shopper-demographics-average-is-white-woman-2020-1.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Sarah Brennan, Rebecca A. Dore, Roberta Michnick
Golinkoff, and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek. 2020. “Children and Screens.” Annual Reviewof Developmental Psychology 2:69–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-060320-095612.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek. 2019. “Brain Training for Kids: Adding a Human Touch.” Cerebrum 2019:cer-01-19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC7075358/#.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Ashley Quinones, Carmela DiFlorio, Rebecca Schwartz, Nowou
Cyrielle Talla Takoukam, Marie Salerno, and Jennifer M. Zosh. 2021. “Looking Deeper into the Toy Box: Understanding Caregiver Toy Selection Decisions.” Infant Behavior and Development 62:101529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infbeh.2021.101529.
Hassinger-Das, Brenna, Tamara S. Toub, Jennifer M. Zosh, Jessica Michnick, Roberta
Golinkoff, and Kathy Hirsh-Pasek. 2017. “More than Just Fun: A Place for Gamesin Playful Learning/Más que diversión: el lugar de los juegos reglados en el aprendizaje lúdico.” Infancia y Aprendizaje/Journal for the Study of Education and Development 40:191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1292684.
Healey, Aleeya, Alan Mendelsohn, and Council on Early Childhood. 2019. “Selecting
Appropriate Toys for Young Children in the Digital Era.” Pediatrics 143: e20183348.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3348.
Hill, Catherine, Christianne Corbett, and Andresse St. Rose. 2010. Why So Few? Womenin Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. ERIC Number: ED509653.
Hogan, Stephen P. 2007. “Toy Stories, Horror Stories, and Fairy Tales: The Role of theMedia in Highlighting Issues of Corporate Responsibility.” Young Consumers 8:94–
100. https://doi.org/10.1108/17473610710757446.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2015. Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation. https://doi.
org/10.17226/19401.
Jennings, Nancy A., and Judi Puritz Cook. 2021. “Toys that Train the Tots: Fisher-Price’s
Smart Toys in the Digital Age.” In The Marketing of Children’s Toys: Critical Perspectives on Children’s Consumer Culture, edited by Rebecca C. Hains and Nancy
A. Jennings, 125–42.
Kochanska, Grazyna, Lea J. Boldt, and Kathryn C. Goffin. 2019. “Early Relational Experience: A Foundation for the Unfolding Dynamics of Parent-Child Socialization.”Child Development Perspectives 13:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12308.
Kollmayer, Marlene, Marie-Therese Schultes, Barbara Schober, Tanja Hodosi, and Christiane Spiel. 2018. “Parents’ Judgments about the Desirability of Toys for Their
Children: Associations with Gender Role Attitudes, Gender-Typing of Toys, and

31

32

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Demographics.” Sex Roles 79:329–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0882-4.
Lam, Virginia L., and Patrick J. Leman. 2003. “The Influence of Gender and Ethnicity on
Children’s Inferences about Toy Choice.” Social Development 12:269–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00233.
Landry, Susan H., Karen E. Smith, Cynthia L. Miller-Loncar, and Paul R. Swank. 1998.
“The Relation of Change in Maternal Interactive Styles to the Developing Social
Competence of Full-Term and Preterm Children.” Child Development 69:105–23.
Lauricella, Alexis R., Tiffany A. Pempek, Rachel Barr, and Sandra L. Calvert. 2010.
“Contingent Computer Interactions for Young Children’s Object Retrieval Success.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31:362–69.
Leaper, Campbell, and Rebecca S. Bigler. 2018. “Societal Causes and Consequences ofGender-Typing of Children’s Toys.” In Gender-Typing of Children’s Toys: How Early
Play Experiences Impact Development, edited by Erica S. Weisgram and Lisa M.
Dinella, 287–308. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0000077-013.
Levine, Susan C., Kristin R. Ratliff, Janellen Huttenlocher, and Joanna Cannon. 2012.
“Early Puzzle Play: A Predictor of Preschoolers’ Spatial Transformation Skill.”
Developmental Psychology 48:530–42.
Magatef, Sima Ghaleb, and Raed Ahmad Momani. 2020. “The Role of Commercial
Advertisements Directed to Children Influencing on Parents’ Purchasing Decision.”Management Science Letters 10:411–24. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.029.
Martin, Carol Lynn, Lisa Eisenbud, and Hilary Rose. 1995. “Children’s Gender-Based
Reasoning.” Child Development 66:1453–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131657.
Masunaga, Samantha. 2015. “Target Plays Catch-Up in Removing Gender-Based Toy
Labels.” Los Angeles Times, August 10. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fitarget-gender-labeling-20150810-story.html.
Michael Cohen Group. 2019. “Parents’ Choice Foundation and MCG Find Similarities
in Toy Selection and Purchase Habits.” MCG, February 12. https://www.mcgrc.
com/parents-choice-foundation-mcg-release-results-of-new-survey-on-caregivers-toys/.
Miller, Jennifer L., Amanda Lossia, Catalina Suarez-Rivera, and Julie Gros-Louis. 2017.
“Toys That Squeak: Toy Type Impacts Quality and Quantity of Parent–Child Interactions.” First Language 37:630–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723717714947.
Nelson-Rowe, Shan. 1994. “Ritual Magic, Educational Toys: Symbolic Aspects of Toy
Selection.” In Troubling Children: Studies of Children and Social Problems, edited
by Joel Best, 117–31.
Okita, Sandray. 2004. “Effect of Age on Associating Virtual and Embodied Toys.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 7:464–71. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.464.
Oktaviani, Rani Chandra, and Fadlin Nur Ichwan. 2021. “Imported Toys in Indonesia:
Parental Consumer Literacy, Purchasing Decisions, and Globalization.” In The
Marketing of Children’s Toys: Critical Perspectives on Children’s Consumer Culture,edited by Rebecca C. Hains and Nancy A. Jennings, 85–103.
Patterson, Rob. 2020. “Infographic: Differentiating Walmart and Target Shoppers.”
Inspira, July 1. https://inspiramarketing.com/infographic-differentiating-walmart-

The Transforming Toybox

and-target-shoppers/.
Richards, Melissa N., Diane L. Putnick, and Marc H. Bornstein. 2020. “Toy Buying
Today: Considerations, Information Seeking, and Thoughts about Manufacturer
Suggested Age.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 68:101134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101134.
Rideout, Victoria, and Vikki S. Katz. 2016. Opportunity for All? Technology and Learning in Lower Income Families. https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/jgcc_opportunityforall.pdf.
Rideout, Victoria, and Michael B. Robb. 2020. “The Common Sense Census: Media Use
by Kids Age Zero to Eight, 2020.” Common Sense Media, November 17. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-useby-kids-age-zero-to-eight-2020.
Rubin, Kenneth H., and Nina Howe. 1985. “Toys and Play Behaviors: An Overview.”
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 5:1–9.
Ruff, Holly Alliger, and Mary Klevjord Rothbart. 1996. “Increasing Independence in
the Control of Attention.” In Attention in Early Development: Themes and Variations, 133–54.
Ruwindah, Abroro, and Sri Sularti Dewanti Handayani. 2019. “The Efforts of Parents
in Choosing Suitable Toys for Children Aged 3–4 Years.” BELIA: Early Childhood
Education Papers 8:28–34. doi: 10.15294/belia.v8i1.30756.
Sobe, Noah 2009. “Fisher-Price.” In Encyclopedia of Play in Today’s Society, edited byRobert Carlisle, 233–233. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412971935.
Sosa, Anna V. 2016. “Association of the Type of Toy Used during Play with the Quantity and Quality of Parent-Infant Communication.” JAMA Pediatrics 170:132–37.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3753.
Statista. 2018. “Share of People Who Shopped at Target Corporation in the United Statesin 2018, by Age.” Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/231373/people-whoshopped-at-target-within-the-last-30-days-usa/.
Sweet, Elizabeth Valerie. Boy Builders and Pink Princesses: Gender, Toys, and Inequality
over the Twentieth Century. PhD diss., UC Davis, 2013.
The Toy Association. 2022. “Annual U.S. Sales Data.” The Toy Association. https://www.
toyassociation.org/ta/research/data/u-s-sales-data/toys/research-and-data/data/
us-sales-data.aspx.
Tomopoulos, Suzy, Benard P. Dreyer, Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, Virginia Flynn, Irene
Rovira, Wendy Tineo, and Alan L. Mendelsohn. 2006. “Books, Toys, Parent-ChildInteraction, and Development in Young Latino Children.” Ambulatory Pediatrics
6:72–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ambp.2005.10.001.
Trawick-Smith, Jeffrey, Jennifer Wolff, Marley Koschel, and Jamie Vallarelli. 2015. “Effectsof Toys on the Play Quality of Preschool Children: Influence of Gender, Ethnicity,and Socioeconomic Status.” Early Childhood Education Journal 43:249–56.
Verdine, Brian N., Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Nora S. Newcombe. 2017. “Links between Spatial and Mathematical Skills across the Preschool
Years.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 82:7–30.

33

34

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYhttps://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12280.
Weisgram, Erica S. 2018. “Gender Typing of Toys in Historical and Contemporary Contexts.” In Gender Typing of Children’s Toys: How Early Play Experiences Impact
Development, edited by Erica S. Weisgram and Lisa M. Dinella, 9–22. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0000077-002.
Wood, Eileen, Serge Desmarais, and Sara Gugula. 2002. “The Impact of Parenting Experience on Gender Stereotyped Toy Play of Children.” Sex Roles 47:39–49.
Wooldridge, Michaela B., and Jennifer Shapka. 2012. “Playing with Technology: Mother–
Toddler Interaction Scores Lower during Play with Electronic Toys.” Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology 33:211–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2012.05.005.
Youngblade, Lise M., and Judy Dunn. 1995. “Individual Differences in Young Children’s
Pretend Play with Mother and Sibling: Links to Relationships and Understandingof Other People’s Feelings and Beliefs.” Child Development 66:1472–92.
Zosh, Jennifer M., Brian N. Verdine, Andrew Filipowicz, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff,
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Nora S. Newcombe. 2015. “Talking Shape: Parental Language with Electronic versus Traditional Shape Sorters.” Mind, Brain, and Education 9:136–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12082.