Experimental Literature Review

Can someone write me a 3 to 5 page Literature Review on one article? The article will be provided with the outline on how I need it done. 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Gender Labels on Gender-Neutral Colors: Do they Affect Children’s
Color Preferences and Play Performance?

Sui Ping Yeung1 & Wang Ivy Wong1

Published online: 4 January 2018
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Abstract
Gender-typed color preferences are widely documented, and there has been increasing concern that they affect children’s play
preferences. However, it is unclear whether such color preferences exist across cultures, how they have emerged, and how gender
color-coding affects performance. Chinese preschoolers (n = 126) aged 59 to 94 months were tested. First, we assessed their
gender-typed color preferences using forced-choice tasks with color cards and pictures of neutral toys in gender-typed colors.
Second, we tested if gender labels could affect color preferences by labeling two gender-neutral colors as gender-typed and
assessed children’s liking for them using a rating task and a forced-choice task with pictures of neutral toys in the labeled colors.
Third, we assigned children a tangram puzzle (i.e., a puzzle using geometric pieces) painted either in the gender-appropriate or
gender-inappropriate color and measured the number of pieces they completed and their speed. Results showed that Chinese
children exhibited the same gender-typed color preferences as Western children did. Moreover, applying gender labels amplified
a gender difference in color preferences, thus providing direct and strong evidence for the social-cognitive pathway underlying
gender-typed preferences. Finally, color-coding as gender-appropriate or -inappropriate had no impact on performance but the
gender labels improved boys’ performance. These results add to knowledge on how gender-related information affects children’s
responses to the social world and suggest that the current gender color divide should be reconsidered.

Keywords Gender labels . Gender color-coding . Color preferences . Play performance . Gender differences

BGender Revolution,^ a special issue of National
Geographic Magazine in January 2017, has caught world-
wide attention (Goldberg 2017). A striking image is the
photo of a transgender nine-year-old girl dressed in pink
from head to toe on the cover. Other images show girls
and boys surrounded by exclusively pink or blue posses-
sions (Zuckerman 2017). It is easy to observe, for in-
stance in shops and advertisements, that pink is common-
ly used in a wide range of products targeting girls and
blue in products targeting boys. Pink and blue have be-
come gender-typed as symbols of femaleness and male-
ness, respectively, and appear to be the most gender-typed
among different colors in the recent decades (Chiu et al.

2006; Del Giudice 2012). The colors themselves can thus
serve as visual gender labels (Wong and Hines 2015a).

The prevalence of gender labels and of gender color-
coding (i.e., the use of gender-typed colors in differentiat-
ing objects by gender) may affect how children respond to
the environment as proposed by gender schema theory
(Martin and Halverson 1981). The possibility that such
labels affect child development has aroused the concerns
of parents, educators, and researchers. Although research
has demonstrated a gender difference in children’s color
preferences and the effects of gender color-coding on chil-
dren’s gender assignment of and preferences for toys
(Weisgram et al. 2014; Wong and Hines 2015a, b), these
studies only provided a picture of the West and did not
address how a gender difference in color preferences
emerged. Moreover, there is little research on whether gen-
der color-coding has behavioral consequences such as af-
fecting performance. Therefore, the present study aimed to
examine (a) if Chinese children would show gender-typed
preferences for pink and blue, (b) if a gender difference in
color preferences could be created by merely applying gen-
der labels to the colors, and (c) if the colors, after becoming

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0875-3) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.

* Wang Ivy Wong
iwwong@hku.hk

1 Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong,
Pokfulam, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0875-3

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11199-017-0875-3&domain=pdf

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0875-3

mailto:iwwong@hku.hk

gender-typed, would affect children’s performance in their
play with materials coded in the color labeled as for their
own or the other gender. Findings would contribute to re-
vealing the social-cognitive pathway underlying gender-
typed color preferences and the potential impacts of gender
labels and gender color-coding.

Gender Schema Theory

Gender schema theory (Martin and Halverson 1981) proposed
that once children have acquired gender identity, they begin to
actively seek out gender-related information from the environ-
ment and assimilate the information into their gender schema,
which then guides their behavior on what is appropriate or
inappropriate for their gender (Fagot and Leinbach 1989;
Martin and Ruble 2004; Martin et al. 2002). These standards
of gender-appropriateness influence how children interact
with their surroundings (Halim and Ruble 2010; Maccoby
and Jacklin 1974). An example is that children’s involvement
in housework could be affected by parents’ division of labor,
with girls performing domestic chores such as cooking (an act
usually performed by mothers) and boys performing mainte-
nance chores like wall-painting (an act usually performed by
fathers) (Antill et al. 1996; Basow 1992).

As for the case of colors, information about the gender
attribute of colors may teach children that colors are gen-
der-typed. In recent years, the marketing of children’s
merchandise has been increasingly gender-specific
(Cunningham and Macrae 2011). For instance, Disney
products, which dominate the children’s entertainment in-
dustry across the globe, are highly gender-typed and pro-
vide strong cues in the gender attribute of colors by using
pink pervasively in girl-typical toys such as dolls but
bold colors including blue in boy-typical toys such as
vehicles (Auster and Mansbach 2012). Another example
is LEGO®’s BLEGO Friends^ released in 2012. The line
is designed for girls, with a lot more pink bricks used
relative to traditional LEGO® sets targeting at boys
(Black et al. 2016). The use of gender-typed colors in
clothing and room décor is also prevalent (Pomerleau
et al. 1990; Sweet 2013).

Because different colors are frequently paired with girl-
typed or boy-typed objects, and because adults tend to choose
products ranging from toys to clothes in these gender-typical
colors for children (Kane 2006; Pomerleau et al. 1990), girls
and boys have been bombarded with pink and blue, respec-
tively, since their early years. Because of frequent exposure to
the color divide, children may acquire information that colors
are gender-typed, where pink is for girls and blue is for boys
(Paoletti 2012). Once children incorporate the gender attribute
of colors into their gender schema, they may regard the social-
ly constructed Bgender-typical^ colors as appropriate for their

gender and the Bgender-atypical^ colors as inappropriate for
their gender.

Gender-Typed Color Preferences and their
Origin

Given that pink and blue have been strongly associated
with the genders, gender differences in preferences for
pink and blue have been found in studies using pure color
stimuli (Chiu et al. 2006; Hurlbert and Ling 2007) or real
objects of different colors (LoBue and DeLoache 2011;
Picariello et al. 1990) and employing methods such as
forced choices (LoBue and DeLoache 2011; Wong and
Hines 2015b), observations (Wong and Hines 2015a) or
self-report (Cohen 2013; Ellis and Ficek 2001). For ex-
ample, when children aged 3–6 years-old were presented
with toy felt pigs of different colors, girls tended to
choose the pink one and boys the one in dark colors
(e.g., navy blue) as their favorite (Picariello et al. 1990).
When children aged around 2–3 years-old were asked to
choose from pairs of identical objects in pink or blue or to
play with identical toys in pink or blue, girls preferred
pink items more and boys preferred blue items more
(Wong and Hines 2015b).

However, these studies were conducted with Western sam-
ples. Some research examined the color preferences of Asians
such as Chinese, Japanese, and Indonesian. However, they did
not focus on children or on gender differences
(Chattopadhyay et al. 2010; Saito 1994, 1996). It is unclear
whether children from the East share the same gender-typed
color preferences as Western children do, with girls preferring
pink more and boys preferring blue more. Research with
Chinese children could show the prevalence of such gender-
typed color preferences in different cultures.

We should note that the origin of gender-typed color pref-
erences is still unclear. Some researchers suggested that they
are inborn, originating from differences in cone-contrast sen-
sitivity underlying the visual system evolved from gender role
divisions (e.g., hunting vs. fruit-picking) of early humans
(Alexander 2003; Hurlbert and Ling 2007). Yet, this proposi-
tion has been challenged. A recent study found gender differ-
ences in the color preferences of British adults but not Himba
adults (a nonindustrialized population), suggesting that
gender-typed pink-blue preferences are not universal and are
culturally based (Taylor et al. 2013). In addition, gender-typed
preferences for pink and blue only appear to emerge when
children turn 2 years-old (Jadva et al. 2010; LoBue and
DeLoache 2011) and to become stronger as children grow
older (Wong and Hines 2015b).

Chiu et al. (2006) provided further insight into the
cause of gender-typed color preferences by comparing
the color preferences of children with and without gender

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272 261

identity disorder (GID), who express distress about their
sex assigned at birth and identify themselves as the other
gender. They found that girls without GID preferred pink
more than did boys without GID but such preferences
were reversed among children with GID, suggesting that
these preferences result from identification with gender
norms. Another evidence that the gender-typing of these
colors is a cultural product is the finding that society’s
perception of these colors can be different across time.
In the early 1900s, the pink-blue divide was not as rigid
as today (Del Giudice 2017). Pink was sometimes viewed
as a more masculine color whereas blue was sometimes
regarded as a more feminine color (Paoletti 1987).

The non-universality, late emergence of the gender dif-
ferences, the reversal of gender-typed color preferences
among children with and without GID, and the malleabil-
ity of the colors’ gendered nature imply a social-cognitive
pathway of gender-typed color preferences. Specifically,
verbal gender labels have been shown to affect children’s
perception of objects’ gender attribute and interest. When
toys are labeled as for girls or for boys, children like the
toys labeled as for their own gender more than the toys
labeled as for the other gender (Masters et al. 1979;
Weisgram et al. 2014). Although these studies showed
that children establish gender-based knowledge when gen-
der labels are applied to concrete materials (i.e., the toys),
children may also establish gender-based knowledge on
abstract qualities such as shapes and colors (Bem 1981;
Leinbach et al. 1997). When gender labels are applied to
gender-neutral abstract qualities such as colors, the colors
may become gender-typed and their gender attribute may
be assimilated into children’s gender schema, which may
then increase children’s liking for the color labeled as for
their own gender.

However, the possibility that gender differences for ab-
stract qualities such as colors can emerge through a random
labeling mechanism has not been tested directly. All the
known studies that have so far been said to support a social-
cognitive pathway for the gender difference in pink-blue pref-
erences only provide indirect evidence. They are either based
on whether the gender difference is found in certain cultures
(e.g., Taylor et al. 2013) or on the age the gender difference is
found or not (e.g., LoBue and DeLoache 2011). An experi-
ment that manipulates the social-cognitive factors and that
eventually creates a gender difference would offer direct and
strong evidence for the social-cognitive pathway of gender-
typed color preferences. Therefore, we tested whether apply-
ing gender labels to gender-neutral colors would affect girls’
and boys’ liking for these colors and create a gender difference
in their color preferences. This evidence may help explain
how, from a social-cognitive perspective, colors such as pink
and blue, which might have been originally gender-neutral,
have become gender-typed.

Behavioral Consequences

When colors become gender-typed, they can serve as vi-
sual gender labels that define the gender-appropriateness
of objects. Thus, gender color-coding has been found to
affect children’s gender assignment of toys. Children aged
3-years-old already understand the gender-typing of pink
and blue (Martin et al. 2012; Ruble and Martin 1998) and
assign toys to girls or boys based on their colors
(Cunningham and Macrae 2011; Weisgram et al. 2014).
Color is children’s most frequently cited reason when they
sort ambiguous or neutral toys by gender (Cherney and
Dempsey 2010). Gender color-coding also affects chil-
dren’s own preferences, with children expressing greater
verbal interest for toys painted in gender-typical colors
(Weisgram et al. 2014) and playing with the gender-
atypical toy more when it is painted in a gender-typical
color than when it is painted in a gender-atypical color
(Wong and Hines 2015a).

Although these studies reveal the effects of gender color-
coding on gender assignment of and preferences for objects, it
is largely unknown whether gender color-coding would have
other behavioral consequences. The current debate on the use
of colors to intervene in play preferences is mainly concerned
with how to encourage children, girls in particular, to play
more with boy-typical toys as a way to improve spatial skills
(Casey et al. 2008; Jirout and Newcombe 2015). Some sug-
gest applying gender-typed colors to gender-atypical toys
(Black et al. 2016) whereas others suggest removing the color
divide altogether in order to avoid creating new gender stereo-
types (Cunningham and Macrae 2011). Studies examining the
play performance of children in the face of materials coded in
gender-appropriate, gender-inappropriate, or gender-neutral
colors will help to evaluate the developmental consequences
of using colors as an intervention for children’s play.

Only two known studies examined the effect of color on
play performance. One examined the effect of the color of a
masculine construction toy, LEGO® bricks, on children’s play
performance (Fulcher and Hayes 2017). The authors
employed the idea of stereotype threat (i.e., an awareness of
being judged adversely based on stereotypes; Spencer et al.
1999) and hypothesized that feminine colors would activate
girls’ stereotypes about inferior performance on a masculine
task and thus girls, but not boys, would perform worse when
they receive feminine-colored bricks (i.e., pink/purple) than
when they receive masculine-colored bricks (i.e., blue/green).
Results did not support this hypothesis; when children were
instructed to build certain objects, brick color had no impact
on the speed or accuracy of girls’ or boys’ construction.
Another study (Mulvey et al. 2017) assessed engineering ap-
titude of preschool and primary school children when they
were given feminine-colored (i.e., pastel colors) or
masculine-colored (i.e., primary colors) engineering materials.

262 Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272

They hypothesized that counter-stereotypic colors would im-
pede performance, especially that of boys, because it is more
difficult for boys to act in counter-stereotypic ways. However,
their study also found no main or interaction effects of color.
These studies suggest that gender color-coding has a minimal
effect on children’s play performance.

However, it is too early to conclude that color has no im-
pact on performance. Past research consistently showed that
the gender-appropriateness of tasks affected how children per-
formed. When a gender-neutral perceptual motor task was
labeled as relating to electronics (i.e., stereotypically boy-typ-
ical) or to needlework (i.e., stereotypically girl-typical), chil-
dren performed better when the labels were consistent with
their gender (Davies 1986‚ 1989; Hargreaves et al.
1985). Other research showed that when children were told
that an unfamiliar gender-neutral toy game was designed for
their own gender, they tended to be more attracted to it and
perform better (Montemayor 1977). This enhanced perfor-
mance was suggested to be caused by an increased interest:
when children feel interested, they become more attentive,
more persistent, and more motivated to work hard on the task
(Hidi 2000; Locke and Latham 1990; Van Yperen 2003).
Because gender-typed colors provide cues about the gender-
appropriateness of objects and affect interest (Weisgram et al.
2014), and because gender-appropriateness of the tasks can
affect performance (Davies 1986), it is possible that colors,
after becoming gender-typed, would serve as visual gender
labels denoting the gender-appropriateness, alter interest, and
as a result affect the performance of both girls and boys.
Children engaging in a gender-neutral task (instead of a ste-
reotype-relevant, masculine task as in Fulcher and Hayes
2017, and Mulvey et al. 2017) but assigned task materials
coded in the color labeled as for their own gender (i.e., gen-
der-appropriate) may perform better than those playing with
materials coded in the color labeled as for the other gender
(i.e., gender-inappropriate).

The Present Study

Given that it is unexamined whether gender-typed color pref-
erences exist among children in the East, that the social-
cognitive pathway of such preferences is still unclear, and that
little is known about the behavioral consequences of gender
color-coding, we proposed three sets of hypotheses. First,
concerning preferences for pink versus blue, like Western chil-
dren, we expect that Chinese girls will like pink more and
boys will like blue more (Hypothesis 1).

Second, concerning the social-cognitive pathway, when
gender labels are applied to gender-neutral colors, children
will show a greater liking for the color labeled as for their
own gender than for the color labeled as for the other gender
and more so than will children in the condition where no

gender labels are applied (Hypothesis 2a). A between-gender
difference in the preferences for these colors will also emerge
when gender labels are applied, with girls preferring the girl-
labeled color more than boys do and boys preferring the boy-
labeled color more than girls do (Hypothesis 2b). Third,
concerning the impact of gender color-coding, when gender
labels are applied to the gender-neutral colors, children, both
girls and boys, playing with materials painted in the color
labeled as for their own gender will perform better than those
playing with materials painted in the color labeled as for the
other gender (Hypothesis 3).

Because our study investigated the effects of gender labels
and gender color-coding on girls’ and boys’ cognition and
behavior, it was important to study children who were able
to identify their own gender and were at the stage of active
acquisition of gender-related information (Martin and
Halverson 1981). According to cognitive-developmental the-
ory, gender development goes through three stages: gender
identity, gender stability, and gender consistency (Kohlberg
1966). Although some research shows that not all children
pass through these stages linearly (Cohen-Kettenis and
Pfäfflin 2003), reviews have found that most children acquire
gender identity at the age of two (Ruble et al. 2007; Zosuls
et al. 2009). In addition, when children reach five years of age
and before they reach the consistency stage around 7-years-
old, they become very rigid in following gender norms (Ruble
et al. 2007; Serbin et al. 1993). Therefore, we studied children
at preschool years aged around 5–7 years-old.

Method

Participants

We recruited 129 preschoolers from two kindergartens in
Hong Kong. Three participants were excluded from analyses:
One boy was reported by his parent as having color weakness,
one girl had an outlier value with a z-score above 3 on the
tangram task (i.e., a puzzle using geometric pieces), and one
girl withdrew. The remaining 126 participants had normal
color vision and no learning difficulties as reported by their
parents. All participants were Chinese, aged 59 to 94 months
(M = 67.89 [5.66 years], SD = 5.59). There were 61 boys
(48.4%; Mage = 68.10 months, SD = 6.28) and 65 girls
(51.6%; Mage = 67.69 months, SD = 4.89). One parent of each
participant completed a questionnaire on demographic char-
acteristics. Four parents (3.2%) did not report monthly house-
hold income. Of others who did, the income ranged from
HKD8,000 to HKD100,000 (i.e., around US$1025–12,820)
with a mean of HKD35,557 (i.e., around US$4558) and a
standard deviation of HKD21,458 (i.e., around US$2751).
Three parents (2.4%) did not report their own and their
spouse’s education level. Of those who did, 35.8% of fathers

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272 263

(n = 45) and 29.4% of mothers (n = 37) had tertiary qualifica-
tions, 32.5% of fathers (n = 41) and 42.9% of mothers (n = 54)
completed high school, and 29.4% of fathers (n = 37) and
25.4% of mothers (n = 32) completed junior secondary edu-
cation or below.

Design and Procedure

The full design was a 2 (Gender: girls vs. boys) × 2
(Label: yes vs. no) × 2 (Color-coding: gender-
appropriate vs. gender-inappropriate). Participants were
randomly assigned to the experimental (label) or the con-
trol (no label) group. Only the label group was exposed to
gender labels (Girls x Label: n = 34; Girls x No label: n =
31; Boys x Label: n = 30; Boys x No label: n = 31). They
were then further randomly assigned to the gender-
appropriate or the gender-inappropriate color condition
(with n = 15 as the smallest cell size). Those in the
gender-appropriate condition received play materials
(i.e., tangram puzzles that use geometric pieces) in the
color labeled as for their gender and those in the gender-
inappropriate condition received play materials in the col-
or labeled as for the other gender.

Our study had received ethical approval from an institu-
tional research ethics committee of a local university. All chil-
dren participated with the written consent of their parent.
Children’s verbal assent was also obtained prior to the exper-
iment. Children were tested individually in a quiet room in the
kindergarten by a female experimenter. The experimenter
wore black so as not to provide any color cues.

We first assessed children’s preferences for pink versus
blue by showing them pink-blue pairs of color cards and
pictures of toys. After that, we evaluated children’s pre-
exiting likings for two colors that were found to be
gender-neutral in a pilot test, yellow and green, by show-
ing them yellow and green color cards. After this came
the manipulation procedure. Only children in the label
group were told that yellow is a color for girls and green
for boys. The manipulation was checked by asking chil-
dren to indicate which color is for girls and which is for
boys. After the manipulation, children’s new preferences
for yellow and green were examined by showing them
pictures of toys in yellow or green. Before moving on to
the tangram task, children in the label group were asked
to indicate the gender attribute of yellow and green again
so as to ensure that they remembered the gender labels.
Then, all children were given a tangram either in yellow
or green and had ten minutes to complete as many tan-
gram patterns as they could.

After completing all the testing procedures, children were
debriefed. The experimenter explained clearly to the children
in the label group that yellow and green are in fact colors for
both genders and that both girls and boys can like these two

colors and play with toys in these colors as they wish. All
children expressed their understanding.

Materials and Measures

Preferences for Pink Versus Blue

To assess children’s pink-blue preferences, we used two forced-
choice tasks to increase reliability (Wong and Hines 2015b). In
the first task, six pure color cards (sized 12 cm × 12 cm)—three
from the blue collection and three from the pink collection—
were employed (see online supplement, Fig. 1s, a–f). Each card
displayed one of these colors (hues indicated in brackets):
Greenish blue (116), navy blue (158), sky blue (136), purplish
pink (207), reddish pink (242), and typical pink (221). These
colors all had a saturation level at 240 and a luminance level at
140. Their hues were determined in a pilot test of ten adults
(five male, five female), who were shown 86 shades created on
Microsoft Power Point, hues ranging from 0 to 255, with 3-
point intervals. They indicated the shade they thought was the
most representative of each of the above colors and their
choices were averaged. The six color cards formed nine pink-
blue pairs. Children were shown each pair in random order. The
left-right position of the pink and the blue color cards was
counterbalanced. Children pointed at the color they liked more.
A point was given when they pointed at pink. The total score
could thus range from zero to nine.

In the second task, pictures (sized 15 cm × 15 cm)
displaying three pink-blue pairs of gender-neutral play mate-
rials were used (see online supplement, Fig. 1s g–h, for an
example of a pink-blue pair). In each pair, the materials were
identical except that one was pink and one was blue. The sets
of materials were balloons, crayons, and star stickers, which
were rated or used in previous studies as gender-neutral
(Arthur et al. 2009; Blakemore and Centers 2005; Masters
et al. 1979; Wong and Hines 2015b).

Children were shown each pair of play materials in random
order. The left-right position of the pink and the blue items
was counterbalanced. Children pointed at the item they liked
more in each pair. A point was given when the pink item was
chosen. The total score could thus range from zero to three.
Scores for the two tasks were positively correlated,
r(124) = .74, p < .001. The raw score of each task was con- verted into a standardized score (z-score). The two z-scores were then averaged to form a color composite score. A posi- tive score indicated a greater liking for pink and a negative score indicated a greater liking for blue.

Manipulation of Gender Labeling

In the experiment, gender labels were applied to two
gender-neutral colors: Typical yellow (42) and typical
green (79). Both colors had a saturation level at 240 and

264 Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272

a luminance level at 140, and their hues were again de-
termined by ten adults with the said pilot procedure. The
gender-neutrality of these two colors was pilot tested with
ten children (four boys, six girls) aged 4–10 years-old.
The ten children sorted 13 colors (i.e., typical yellow,
typical green, the six colors used to assess pink-blue pref-
erences, plus typical red [0], reddish orange [8], typical
orange [16], yellowish orange [27], and yellowish green
[50]) as Bfor boys,^ Bfor girls,^ or Bfor both boys and
girls.^ Typical yellow and typical green were perceived
as the two most gender-neutral colors, with eight of ten
children and nine of ten children sorting them as for both
genders, respectively.

Only the label group was exposed to the following ma-
nipulation procedure. For the no label group, no such label-
ing procedure was employed. Given the gender-neutrality
of both colors, by the researchers’ arbitrary assignment,
yellow was always labeled as Bfor girls^ and green as Bfor
boys.^ The 12 cm × 12 cm color cards of yellow and green
were shown to the children one by one (see online supple-
ment, Fig. 2s a–b). The experimenter presented the yellow
card and said: BIn fact, yellow is a color for girls. Many girls
at your age told me that they like yellow very much because
they think yellow is a symbol of girlhood. I think so, too.
Yellow is a color for girls.^ The experimenter also present-
ed the green card and said: BIn fact, green is a color for
boys. Many boys at your age told me that they like green
very much because they think green is a symbol of boy-
hood. I think so, too. Green is a color for boys.^ The order
of the colors presented was counterbalanced across partic-
ipants. To check the manipulation, children were asked to
indicate which color is for girls and which color is for boys
by pointing at the corresponding color card according to
what the experimenter had said. If they failed to identify
the labels correctly, the labeling procedure was repeated.

Preferences for Yellow Versus Green

Prior to the yellow-green color manipulation, participants’
pre-existing likings for typical yellow and typical green were
assessed. Both the label and the no label groups were shown
the yellow and the green color cards, one-by-one in random
order, and were asked to indicate how much they liked each
color by pointing at one of five schematic faces morphing
from a frown (1 = strongly dislike) to a big smile (5 = strongly
like). These faces were in black-and-white so as not to distract
children from the color stimuli or provide any color cues. This
procedure allowed us to control for children’s pre-existing
likings for yellow and green in subsequent analyses.

After the test for pre-existing likings and the manipu-
lation, children’s new preferences for yellow and green
were assessed with two tasks. In the first task, 21 pictures
(sized 15 cm × 15 cm) of gender-neutral play materials

were used. Sixteen of them displayed eight pairs of iden-
tical materials in which one was yellow and one was
green. The eight pairs of picture illustrations were bal-
loons, crayons, kites, play dough, sand toy sets, slinkies,
star stickers, and xylophones (see online supplement,
Fig. 2s c–d, for examples of picture illustrations). The
remaining five pictures were fillers displaying another
five play materials (i.e., cash register, doctor kit, drawing
board, karaoke machine, tricycle) in various colors except
yellow and green. The fillers were to mask the focus on
yellow and green so as to elicit more implicit responses.
All of these play materials were rated or used in past
studies as gender-neutral (Arthur et al. 2009; Blakemore
and Centers 2005; Masters et al. 1979; Wong and Hines
2015b). Children were presented with the pictures one by
one in random order. They were asked, BHow much do
you like it?^ and were told to indicate their liking on a 5-
point scale by pointing at the corresponding schematic
face. Their ratings were added up respectively to generate
two scores: Total liking for materials in yellow and total
liking for materials in green, each with a minimum of
eight points and a maximum of 40 points.

In the second task, the 16 pictures of yellow and green play
materials used in the prior task that formed eight yellow-green
pairs were administered as a forced-choice task. Each pair was
presented in random order and the left-right position of the
yellow and the green items was counterbalanced. Children
were asked to point at the picture they liked more in each pair.
The numbers of chosen yellow and green items were both
recorded, each with a minimum of zero points and a maximum
of eight points.

To reduce the number of analyses and to better reflect
children’s relative preferences for yellow versus green, the
score of liking for green was subtracted from the score of
liking for yellow to generate a difference score indicating
children’s preference for yellow over green for each task,
before and after the manipulation. That is, each child had
three difference scores: (a) one was before the manipula-
tion indicating their pre-existing liking that would be con-
trolled for in subsequent analyses and the other two were
after the manipulation; (b) one from the rating task and (c)
the other from the forced-choice task. A positive score
indicated a greater preference for yellow over green and
a negative score indicated a greater preference for green
over yellow. To increase reliability, scores of the two tasks
after the manipulation, which were positively correlated,
r(124) = .36, p < .001, were combined for analysis. The raw difference scores were converted into z-scores to make them comparable. They were averaged to form a color composite score for new preference for yellow over green after the manipulation. A positive score indicated a greater liking for yellow and a negative score indicated a greater liking for green.

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272 265

Tangram Task

The impact of gender color-coding on play performance was
assessed with tangram. Tangram is a puzzle comprising seven
geometric pieces including a square, a parallelogram and five
triangles different in size. Tangram had been pilot tested to be
gender-neutral, with ten of ten adults and nine of ten children
rating it as for Bboth genders.^ Two sets of 13 cm × 13 cm
tangram were used: One was painted in yellow and the other
was in green (see online supplement, Fig. 3 s, part a). The
colors of the tangrams were in the exact hue, saturation, and
luminance level as the colors displayed in the test for pre-
existing likings and the labeling procedure.

Children in the label or no label group were further ran-
domly assigned to the gender-appropriate or gender-
inappropriate color conditions. In the gender-appropriate color
condition, girls were given a yellow tangram and boys a green
tangram (i.e., to children from the label group, the tangram
color had been labeled as for their own gender; to those from
the no label group, the tangram color was gender-neutral be-
cause participants had not been exposed to any gender labels).
In the gender-inappropriate color condition, girls were given a
green tangram and boys a yellow tangram (i.e., the tangram
color had been labeled as for the other gender).

The tangram task required children to form ten patterns.
Each pattern was pilot tested with ten adults to be gender-
neutral, with at least seven respondents indicating it as having
no connotation of gender. These adults also rated each pat-
tern’s difficulty level on a 5-point scale (1 = very easy; 5 =
very difficult). Their ratings were averaged to determine the
difficulty level of the patterns. The patterns in the order from
the lowest to the highest level of difficulty were fir tree, bird,
fish, house, teapot, dog, turtle, t-shirt, tree, and whale (down-
loadable from Tangram Channel: https://www.tangram-
channel.com). Each was displayed in silhouette in one-to-
one size ratio to the tangram and printed on an A3 paper
against a light grey background. To fit the ability of pre-
schoolers, in each silhouette, the experimenter always placed
one of the largest triangles and the parallelogram at their cor-
rect positions (see online supplement, Figs. 3 s b–g for exam-
ples of silhouettes). Children only needed to allocate the re-
maining five pieces of tangram to complete each pattern.

Before the commencement of the task, the labeling manip-
ulation was checked again by asking children in the label
group to indicate which color is for girls and which color is
for boys so as to ensure that they remembered the gender
labels. After that, children in both conditions were given a
practice trial. They were taught to rearrange the five separate
pieces of tangram into a duck pattern. All five pieces must be
used and laid flat next to each other closely without overlap.

When the test trial began, the ten patterns were present-
ed to the children one-by-one in order of increasing diffi-
culty. Children were told to try their best on their own to

complete the patterns by placing the tangram pieces to the
corresponding position on the silhouette within 10 min.
Once children successfully completed a pattern, the exper-
imenter immediately removed the five tangram pieces
from the silhouette of that pattern, gave them back the
five tangram pieces together with a silhouette of another
pattern, and asked them to continue. When children asked
for help, claimed that they completed the shape when they
actually did not, or expressed their wish to give up, the
experimenter did not provide any hints but instead en-
couraged them to keep trying. No participant quitted the
task midway. The numbers of tangram pieces correctly
placed on each presented silhouette during the test were
added to generate a total score. Because each pattern
needed five pieces to complete and because children
could be presented with ten patterns at most, the maxi-
mum score was 50. The average time in seconds needed
to place each piece to the corresponding position was also
recorded (i.e., 600 s divided by the total number of tan-
gram pieces completed). These two variables reflected
children’s performance on the tangram task.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

To ensure group comparability, Chi-squared tests and one-
way ANOVAs were conducted. The groups did not differ in
gender, age, monthly household income, or parental education
(all ps > .05), indicating that the group assignments were ran-
dom and that the groups were comparable. To identify poten-
tial covariates to be included in subsequent analyses, we
looked at the correlations of the demographic variables with
the outcome variables. Monthly household income positively
correlated with children’s new preference for yellow over
green after the manipulation, r(124) = .24, p = .008. We also
found that father’s education correlated positively with the
number of tangram pieces completed, r(124) = .20, p = .029,
and negatively with the average time needed to correctly place
each tangram piece, r(124) = −.20, p = .027. Thus, to prevent
confounding, monthly household income was controlled for
when analyzing children’s new preference for yellow over
green and parental education was controlled for when analyz-
ing their performance on the tangram task.

Because an independent-samples t-test showed that, before
manipulation, girls (M = .86, SD = 1.31) liked yellow more (or
green less) than did boys (M = −.28, SD = 1.61), t(124) =
−4.37, p < .001, d = .78, despite that yellow and green were perceived by the children in the pilot test as gender-neutral, we also looked at the correlation of pre-existing liking for yellow over green with the outcome variables. The analyses indicated that pre-existing liking correlated positively with children’s

266 Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272

https://www.tangram-channel.com

https://www.tangram-channel.com

new preference for yellow over green after the manipulation,
r(124) = .36, p < .001, and the number of tangram pieces com- pleted, r(124) = .22, p = .014, and negatively with the average time needed to complete each piece, r(124) = −.27, p = .002. Therefore, for analyses that included children’s new prefer- ence for yellow over green and their performance on the tan- gram task, pre-existing liking for yellow over green was sta- tistically controlled.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1: Preferences for Pink Versus Blue

A planned independent-samples t-test was conducted to ex-
amine children’s preference for pink over blue. There was a
significant difference in girls’ and boys’ preferences for pink
over blue, with girls (M = .60, SD = .62) liking pink more (i.e.,
blue less) than did boys (M = −.64, SD = .77), t(124) = −9.89,
p < .001, d = −1.76.

Hypothesis 2: Preferences for Yellow Versus Green

A 2 (Gender) × 2 (Label: yes vs. no) ANCOVAwas conducted
to test for children’s new preference for yellow over green
after controlling for pre-existing liking and monthly house-
hold income. There was a significant main effect of gender,
such that girls (M = .33, SD = .08) preferred yellow to green
more than did boys (M = −.32, SD = .09), F(1‚116) = 27.90,
p < .001, d = .97. A significant two-way interaction between gender and labeling was found, F(1‚116) = 14.14, p < .001, d = .70 (see Fig. 1). Pairwise comparisons showed that within gender, girls in the label group (M = .55, SD = .11) had a great- er liking for yellow over green than did girls in the no label group (M = .12, SD = .12), F(1‚116) = 7.85, p = .006, d = .52, and that boys in the label group (M = −.53, SD = .12) had a greater liking for green over yellow (or a lesser liking for

yellow over green) than did boys in the no label group (M =
−.11, SD = .12), F(1‚116) = 6.40, p = .013, d = .47. Pairwise
comparisons also indicated that in the no label group, girls
(M = .12, SD = .12) and boys (M = −.11, SD = .12) did not
differ in their likings for yellow over green, F(1‚116) = 1.70,
p = .195, d = .24, but in the label group, girls (M = .55,
SD = .11) liked yellow more than did boys (M = −.53,
SD = .12), or, in other words, boys liked green more than did
girls, F(1‚116) = 41.56, p < .001, d = 1.19. In short, children in the label group, both girls and boys, preferred the color labeled as for their own gender but children in the no label group did not show such preference.

Hypothesis 3: Tangram Performance

We conducted 2 (Gender) × 2 (Labeling) × 2 (Color-coding:
gender-appropriate vs. gender-inappropriate) ANCOVAs to
examine children’s performance on the tangram task after
controlling for pre-existing color liking and parental educa-
tion. In terms of the number of pieces completed, there were
no main effects of gender, labeling, or color-coding, nor a
three-way interaction. The hypothesized interaction between
labeling and color-coding was not significant. However, a
two-way interaction between gender and labeling was found,
F(1‚112) = 4.03, p = .047, d = .38 (see Fig. 2). Pairwise com-
parisons showed that within gender, boys in the label group
(M = 31.80, SD = 1.74) completed more tangram pieces than
did boys in the no label group (M = 26.61, SD = 1.66),
F(1‚112) = 4.85, p = .03, d = .42, whereas the performance of
girls in the label group (M = 25.51, SD = 1.61) did not differ
from that of girls in the no label group (M = 26.96, SD = 1.74),
F(1‚112) = .39, p = .534, d = .11. Pairwise comparisons also
showed that in the no label group, the number of tangram
pieces boys (M = 26.61, SD = 1.66) and girls (M = 26.96,
SD = 1.74) completed did not differ, F(1‚112) = .021,
p = .886, but in the label group, boys (M = 31.80, SD = 1.74)
completed more tangram pieces than did girls (M = 25.51,
SD = 1.61), F(1‚112) = 6.72, p = .011, d = .49. As for the

–

0.6

–

0.4

–

0.2

0

0.2
0.4
0.6

No Label Group Label Group

M
ea

n
p

re
fe

re
n

ce
f

or
y

el
lo

w
o

ve
r

gr
ee

n

Girls

Boys

Fig. 1 The significant interaction between gender and labeling for
children’s new preference for yellow over green after the manipulation,
with positive scores indicating a greater liking for yellow (labeled as for
girls) over green (labeled as for boys) and negative scores indicating a
greater liking for green over yellow

24

26

28

30

32

No Label Group Label Group
M
ea

n
n

u
m

b
er

o
f

p
ie

ce
s

co
m

p
le

te
d

Girls
Boys

Fig. 2 The significant interaction between gender and labeling for
children’s performance on the tangram task in terms of the number of
pieces completed

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272 267

average time needed to complete each tangram piece, unlike
the results of the number of pieces completed, there were no
main effects or two-way or three-way interactions. In sum,
labeling magnified the gender difference in the number of
pieces completed because boys in the label group completed
more pieces than any other group.

Discussion

The present study looked into children’s gender-typed color
preferences and the effects of gender labels and gender color-
coding on both preferences and performance. We demonstrat-
ed that, in support of a social-cognitive pathway, randomly
applied gender labels could amplify gender differences in
preferences for otherwise gender-neutral colors. More impor-
tantly, we found that although children’s play performance
was not affected by whether the color of the play material
was gender-appropriate or -inappropriate, exposure to any
gender labels enlarged gender differences in performance.

Gender-Typed Color Preferences in Chinese Children

Consistent with our first hypothesis and studies conducted in
the West (e.g., Picariello et al. 1990; Wong and Hines 2015b),
Chinese children showed gender-typed preferences for pink
versus blue. Although one other study found an absence of
these gender-typed preferences in a remote non-industrialized
culture (Himba; Taylor et al. 2013), these preferences are pres-
ent in young children in non-Western, industrialized cultures.
This finding is not surprising given the high degree of
Westernization and the prevalence of gender color-coding typ-
ical of Western cultures in Hong Kong (Thomas 1999).
Indeed, many gender differences and stereotypes in developed
Asian regions resemble those in the West (Chen and Rao
2011; Lee and Collins 2008; Yu et al. 2010). One point to note
is that the effect size of the gender difference in pink-blue
preferences (d = −1.76) is very large. Given that gender differ-
ences in other psychological areas are generally smaller than 1
(Hines 2010) and most are smaller than .3 (Hyde 2005), our
finding supports the notion that gender-typed liking for pink
versus blue is a particularly salient gender difference. We did
not include adults, but a few studies have found adult Chinese
to show similar gender-typed preferences for pink and blue
(Hurlbert and Ling 2007), so it is likely that these gender
differences will not disappear in these Chinese children when
they grow older.

Social-Cognitive Influences on Gender-Typing

Our second set of hypotheses was also supported. As predict-
ed by gender schema theory (Martin and Halverson 1981) and
in accordance with past research on the effects of gender labels

on children’s preferences (Masters et al. 1979; Weisgram et al.
2014), we found that both girls and boys in the label group had
a greater liking for the color arbitrarily labeled as for their own
gender than did children in the no label group, suggesting that,
by applying gender labels, not only concrete materials such as
toys could become gender-typed, but also abstract qualities
such as colors, with children increasing or decreasing their
likings for particular colors based on the gender labels avail-
able in their social environment.

Moreover, our findings revealed that gender differences
could be created merely by applying gender labels. The inter-
action effect between gender and labeling indicated that, after
controlling for children’s pre-existing liking for the colors,
when the colors were not attached with gender labels, girls’
and boys’ preferences for the colors did not differ (d = .24);
but when gender labels were attached to the colors, a corre-
sponding gender difference in the preferences for these two
colors emerged. The effect size of this newly developed gen-
der difference (d = 1.19) is larger than that of many gender
differences in other psychological areas (d < 1; Hines 2010), indicating the powerfulness of gender labels in giving rise to gender differences. By manipulating the gender labels in an experimental setting, the present study has provided direct and strong evidence for social-cognitive influences on children’s gender-typed color preferences.

Gender Labels, Gender Color-Coding, and Play
Performance

Our results did not support the third hypothesis. We examined
the potential impact of gender color-coding and expected that
when gender labels were applied, children playing with task
materials painted in the gender-appropriate color would per-
form better than those playing with materials painted in the
gender-inappropriate color whereas the performance of chil-
dren in the no label group would not differ regardless of the
color of the tangram. However, the non-significant interaction
between labeling and color-coding showed that colors, either
gender-appropriate or gender-inappropriate, did not improve
or impair children’s performance. Post-hoc power analyses
using G*Power (Erdfelder et al. 1996) suggest that the non-
significant results are unlikely to be due to a lack of statistical
power because the current study has a power of .80 to detect
medium-sized effects (f = .25). It is also unlikely that the non-
significant effect of gender color-coding is due to the manip-
ulation being too weak to turn the gender-neutral colors into
gender-typed or that an effect on performance would have
been found if colors that are more gender-typed were manip-
ulated. In fact, the null result concerning color-coding coin-
cides with two studies using colors that are already strongly
gender-typed (i.e., pink vs. blue and pastel colors vs. primary
colors), which also found no significant effect of the gender-
appropriateness of color on the aptitude of brick building

268 Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272

(Fulcher and Hayes 2017) and engineering play (Mulvey et al.
2017). Therefore, color-coding is unlikely to have a substan-
tial impact on children’s performance.

Despite the non-significant impact of colors, we found an
effect of gender labels on boys’ performance. The significant
interaction between gender and labeling suggested that expo-
sure to gender labels improved boys’ (but not girls’) perfor-
mance on the subsequent tangram task regardless of whether
the boys received the tangram painted in the gender-
appropriate or gender-inappropriate color. Boys who were ex-
posed to labels completed more pieces than did boys in the no
label group and also girls in the label group. Previous studies
found that both girls and boys performed better when the task
or the game was explicitly and directly labeled as for their own
gender than when it was labeled as for the other gender
(Davies 1986; Montemayor 1977). Although some studies
showed that the effect of gender labels was more apparent in
boys’ play performance than in girls’ (Gold and Berger 1978;
Stein et al. 1971), these studies manipulated the labels by
directly labeling the task as either gender-appropriate or
gender-inappropriate and compared the performance of chil-
dren encountering different gender labels.

Unlike past research, in the present study, all children in
the label group were exposed to the same gender labels (i.e.,
yellow is for girls and green is for boys) and the only dif-
ference they encountered was the color of the task material
they received. Although the colors were shown to have
minimal effects, our results provided another picture of
the effect of gender labels by showing that as long as boys
had been exposed to information about gender-appropriate-
ness, their subsequent performance improved. A possible
explanation for the boys’ enhanced performance is the ste-
reotype boost effect, which refers to the phenomenon that
an individual’s performance on a stereotype-relevant task
enhances when the positively stereotyped group identity is
made salient through environmental cues (Armenta 2010;
Shih et al. 2002). For example, when Asian women were
reminded of their ethnic identity, their performance on the
math tests improved; but when their gender identity was
made salient, they performed worse (Ambady et al. 2001;
Shih et al. 1999; Steele and Aronson 1995).

The tangram task used in the present study was viewed
as gender-neutral (i.e., Bfor both boys and girls^) by both
children and adults in the pilot test. However, because
playing with a tangram involves spatial skills (Lee et al.
2009), which often find a male advantage across countries
and ages (Linn and Petersen 1985; Voyer et al. 1995), chil-
dren may expect that boys are better at playing with a tan-
gram. Based on past studies showing a stronger effect of
gender labels on boys than on girls (Gold and Berger 1978),
it is possible that the gender cues in our study may have
aroused only the boys’ awareness of their gender identity
and then activated their cognition about male superiority in

spatial ability, which then boosted their confidence and im-
proved their performance on the tangram task.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although our study contributed knowledge of the cultural
consistency and social-cognitive pathway of gender-typed
color preferences and how gender labels and gender color-
coding affect performance, there are limitations. First, al-
though revealing a possible social-cognitive mechanism on
how children develop gender-typed color preferences, we can-
not rule out inborn factors. Second, we picked typical yellow
and typical green for manipulation because in the pilot test, the
majority of children sorted them as for both genders. Yet,
when we looked at the participants’ pre-existing likings for
these two colors, a gender difference was found, with girls
liking yellow more and boys liking green more, although the
effect size (d = .78) was still much smaller than that of the
gender-typed preferences for pink versus blue (d = 1.76). It
is possible that children in the pilot study inaccurately as-
sumed the gender attribute of yellow and green. It is also
possible that these two colors are not defined by society as
gender-typed but inborn factors play a part in shaping this
gender difference. However, the pre-existing liking for yellow
over green was controlled for in subsequent analyses, so a pre-
existing gender difference did not confound the effect of the
gender labels on children’s post-manipulation liking.

Third, our study found that exposure to gender labels im-
proved boys’, but not girls’, subsequent play performance,
thus creating a male advantage in performance. We propose
that such enhanced performance may be explained by a ste-
reotype boost effect (i.e., the activation of male identity and of
the belief in a male superiority in stereotype-relevant domains;
Shih et al. 2002). However, it is still unknown why only boys’
performance changed after receiving information about gen-
der-appropriateness, regardless of whether they were given
gender-appropriate or gender-inappropriate materials. Future
research can further examine this phenomenon and the under-
lying mechanism. It would also be interesting to take into
account individual’s gender-role attitudes as well as society’s
level of gender equality because these factors may affect the
way individuals process gender-related information. We also
suggest that future research should assess and control for chil-
dren’s spatial abilities and past experience with the toy (i.e.,
tangram as in our study) which may moderate the manipula-
tion effects on children’s performance.

Practice Implications

Our study has practice implications for toymakers and parents.
By showing that gender-typed color preferences are prevalent
even in an Eastern society and for the first time that gender
labels can create gender differences in not only color

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272 269

preferences but also play performance, we believe that, large-
scale, cross-cultural gender-specific marketing, in which the
majority of toys targeting girls and boys are coded in different
colors, put in different aisles, and labeled as BFor Girls^ or
BFor Boys^ (Auster and Mansbach 2012) is liable for these
gender differences, which can lead to long-term developmen-
tal outcomes.

Different types of toys offer different learning experience.
For example, playing with girl-typical toys promotes social
abilities and playing with boy-typical toys promotes spatial
abilities (Blakemore and Centers 2005). However, girls and
boys differ in social and spatial skills (Ickes et al. 2000; Voyer
et al. 1995), and they tend to engage in gender-typical play
and avoid cross-gender activities (Green et al. 2004).
Researchers and educators have thus advocated for children
to play with both gender-typical and gender-atypical toys so
that they can develop a larger variety of skills (Caldera et al.
1989; Cherney and London 2006; Li and Wong 2016;
Sprafkin et al. 1983). Some proposed making use of the gen-
der color divide by applying gender-typed colors to gender-
atypical toys to encourage cross-gender play (e.g., Black et al.
2016), a strategy which may be effective in increasing prefer-
ence as previous research indicated (e.g., Weisgram et al.
2014; Wong and Hines 2015a). Incidentally, LEGO®’s sales
to girls increased substantially since they launched the
LEGO® for Girls line, which, among other marketing strate-
gies, involves a heavy use of pink (Wachman 2012). Despite
finding no effect of colors on performance, our findings on the
effects of gender labels on performance do not support this
reversal or the current pink-blue divide. They suggest that it is
the exposure to gender labels or reminder of a gender divide
per se, rather than whether a gender-appropriate or –
inappropriate version was given to children, that had an im-
pact on play performance. That is, although applying gender-
typed colors to cross-gender toys may achieve the aim of
attracting children to play more with certain toys (e.g.,
Bgetting girls to build^), the trade-off may be an unintended
widening of a gender gap in performance. We suggest that
toymakers and parents avoid gender-labeling the toys, remove
the color divides, and simply adopt a wide range of colors for
both boys’ and girls’ toys.

Conclusion

Our study contributes to showing the prevalence of
gender-typed preferences for pink versus blue by showing
that such preferences were also observed in Chinese chil-
dren, with girls liking pink more and boys liking blue
more. Another significant contribution of our study is that
we have provided direct and strong evidence of social-
cognitive influences on the development of gender-typed
color preferences by demonstrating that a gender differ-
ence in color preferences could be created merely by

gender labels. Besides exploring preferences, our study
also examined the effects of gender color-coding and gen-
der labels on performance and found that gender color-
coding had minimal effect on performance, but having
any gender labels could widen the gender gap in play
performance. The present study facilitates the understand-
ing of how gender-related information affects children’s
development and suggests that the current gender color
divide should be reconsidered.

Compliance with Ethical Standards This project was approved by the
Psychology Departmental Research Ethics Committee at the University
of Hong Kong. All children participated with the written consent of their
parent. Children’s verbal assent was also obtained prior to the experiment.

References

Alexander, G. M. (2003). An evolutionary perspectives of sex-typed toy
preferences: Pink, blue and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
32, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021833110722.

Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype
susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantita-
tive performance. Psychological Science, 12, 385–390. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ 1467-9280.00371.

Antill, J. K., Goodnow, J. J., Russell, G., & Cotton, S. (1996). The influ-
ence of parents and family context on children’s involvement in
household tasks. Sex Roles, 34(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.
1007/BF01544297.

Armenta, B. E. (2010). Stereotype boost and stereotype threat ef-
fects: The moderating role of ethnic identification. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 94–98.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017564.

Arthur, A. E., Bigler, R. S., & Ruble, D. N. (2009). An experimental test
of the effects of gender constancy on sex typing. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 427–446. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jecp.2009.08.002.

Auster, C. J., & Mansbach, C. S. (2012). The gender marketing of
toys: An analysis of color and type of type on the Disney store
website. Sex Roles, 67, 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-012-0177-8.

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender stereotypes and roles (3rd ed.). Pacific
Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.88.4.354.

Black, R. W., Tomlinson, B., & Korobkova, K. (2016). Play and identity
in gendered LEGO franchises. International Journal of Play, 5, 64–
76. https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1147284.

Blakemore, J. E. O., & Centers, R. E. (2005). Characteristics of boys’ and
girls’ toys. Sex Roles, 53(9–10), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-005-7729-0.

Caldera, Y. M., Huston, A. C., & O’Brien, M. (1989). Social interactions
and play patterns of parents and toddlers with feminine, masculine
and neutral toys. Child Development, 60, 70–76. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1131072.

Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., &
Copley, J. (2008). The development of spatial skills through inter-
ventions involving block building activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 26, 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07370000802177177.

270 Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021833110722

https://doi.org/10.1111/%201467-9280.00371

https://doi.org/10.1111/%201467-9280.00371

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544297

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544297

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017564

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.002

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0177-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0177-8

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354

https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2016.1147284

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7729-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7729-0

https://doi.org/10.2307/1131072

https://doi.org/10.2307/1131072

https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177177

https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177177

Chattopadhyay, A., Gorn, G. J., & Drake, P. (2010). Differences and
similarities in hue preferences between Chinese and
Caucasians. In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing: Research
on the sensuality of products (pp. 219–239). New York: Taylor
and Francis Group.

Chen, E. S. L., & Rao, N. (2011). Gender socialization in Chinese kin-
dergartens: Teachers’ contributions. Sex Roles, 64, 103–116. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9873-4.

Cherney, I. D., & Dempsey, J. (2010). Young children’s classification,
stereotyping, and play behavior for gender neutral and ambiguous
toys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(6), 651–669. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.498416.

Cherney, I. D., & London, K. (2006). Gender-linked differences in the
toys, television shows, computer games, and outdoor activities of 5-
to 13-year-old children. Sex Roles, 54, 717–726. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11199-006-9037-8.

Chiu, S. W., Gervan, S., Fairbrother, C., Johnson, L. L., Owen-Anderson,
A. F. H., Bradley, S. J., … Zucker, K. J. (2006). Sex-dimorphic color
preference in children with gender identity disorder: A comparison
to clinical and community controls. Sex Roles, 55, 385–395. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9089-9.

Cohen, P. N. (2013). Children’s gender and parents’ color preferences.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-012-9951-5.

Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., & Pfäfflin, F. (2003). Transgenderism and inter-
sexuality in childhood and adolescence. London: Sage.

Cunningham, S. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2011). The colour of gender
stereotyping. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 598–614. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02023.x.

Davies, D. R. (1986). Children’s performance as a function of sex-typed
labels. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 173–175. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00717.x.

Davies, D. R. (1989). The effects of gender-typed labels on children’s
performance. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 8, 267–
272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686725.

Del Giudice, M. (2012). The 20th century reversal of pink-blue gender
coding: A scientific urban legend? [letter to the Editor]. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 41, 1321–1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-
012-0002-z.

Del Giudice, M. (2017). Pink, blue, and gender: An update. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 46, 1555–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-
017-1024-3.

Ellis, L., & Ficek, C. (2001). Color preferences according to gender and
sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31,
1375–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00231-2.

Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPower: A general power
analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 28(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630.

Fagot, B. I., & Leinbach, M. D. (1989). The young child’s gender sche-
ma: Environmental input, internal organization. Child Development,
60, 663–672. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130731.

Fulcher, M., & Hayes, A. R. (2017). Building a pink dinosaur: The effects
of gendered construction toys on girls’ and boys’ play. Sex Roles.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-
0806-3.

Gold, D., & Berger, C. (1978). Problem solving performance of young
boys and girls as a function of task-appropriateness and sex-identity.
Sex Roles, 4, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287499.

Goldberg, S. (2017, January). Why we put a transgender girl on the cover
of National Geographic. National Geographic: Gender Revolution.
Retrieved from http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/
2017/01/editors-note-gender/.

Green, V. A., Bigler, R., & Catherwood, D. (2004). The variability and
flexibility of gender-typed toy play: A close look at children’s be-
havioral responses to counterstereotypic models. Sex Roles, 78,
371–386. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000049227.05170.aa.

Halim, M. L., & Ruble, D. (2010). Gender identity and stereotyping in
early and middle childhood. In J. Chrisler & D. McCreary (Eds.),
Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 495–525). New
York: Springer.

Hargreaves, D. J., Bates, H. M., & Foot, J. M. C. (1985). Sex-typed
labeling affects task performance. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 24, 153–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.
1985.tb00674.x.

Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher’s perspective: The effects of ex-
trinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In S. Sansone & J. M.
Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search
for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 309–339). San Diego:
Academic Press.

Hines, M. (2010). Sex-related variation in human behavior and the brain.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tics.2010.07.005.

Hurlbert, A. C., & Ling, Y. (2007). Biological components of sex differ-
ences in color preference. Current Biology, 17, 623–625. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022.

Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.60.6.581.

Ickes, W., Gesn, P. R., & Graham, T. (2000). Gender differences in em-
pathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation?
Personal Relationships, 7, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167201276007.

Jadva, V., Hines, M., & Golombok, S. (2010). Infants’ preferences for
toys, colors and shapes: Sex differences and similarities. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 39, 1261–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-
010-9618-z.

Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing
social skills: Evidence from a large, representative U. S. Sample.
Psychological Science, 26, 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797614563338.

Kane, E. W. (2006). BNo way my boys are going to be like that!^:
Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender
and Society, 20, 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0891243205284276.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s
sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The devel-
opment of sex differences (pp. 82–173). Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Lee, J. F. K., & Collins, P. (2008). Gender voices in Hong Kong English
textbooks—Some past and current practices. Sex Roles, 59, 127–
137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9414-6.

Lee, J., Lee, J. O., & Collins, D. (2009). Enhancing children’s spatial
sense using tangrams. Childhood Education, 86(2), 92–94. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2010.10523120.

Leinbach, M. D., Hort, B. E., & Fagot, B. I. (1997). Bears are for boys:
Metaphorical associations in young children’s gender stereotypes.
Cognitive Development, 12, 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0885-2014(97)90032-0.

Li, R. Y. H., & Wong, W. I. (2016). Gender-typed play and social abilities
in boys and girls: Are they related? Sex Roles, 74, 399–410. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0580-7.

Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of
sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child
Development, 56, 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467.

LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2011). Pretty in pink: The early develop-
ment of gender-stereotyped colour preferences. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 29, 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
2044-835X.2011.02027.x.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task
performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272 271

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9873-4

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9873-4

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.498416

https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.498416

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9037-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9037-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9089-9

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9089-9

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9951-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9951-5

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02023.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02023.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00717.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00717.x

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686725

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0002-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0002-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1024-3

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1024-3

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00231-2

https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630

https://doi.org/10.2307/1130731

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0806-3

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0806-3

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287499

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/editors-note-gender/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/editors-note-gender/

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000049227.05170.aa

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1985.tb00674.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1985.tb00674.x

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.005

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.005

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.022

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201276007

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201276007

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563338

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563338

https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205284276

https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205284276

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9414-6

https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2010.10523120

https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2010.10523120

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(97)90032-0

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(97)90032-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0580-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0580-7

https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02027.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02027.x

Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model
of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 52,
1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129498.

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children’s search for gender cues:
Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 13, 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2004.00276.x.

Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of
early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 903–933.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903.

Martin, C. L., DiDonato, M. D., Clary, L., Fabes, R. A., Kreiger, T.,
Palermo, F., … Hanish, L. (2012). Preschool children with gender
normative and gender non-normative peer preferences:
Psychosocial and environmental correlates. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 41, 831–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9950-6.

Masters, J. C., Ford, M. E., Arend, R., Grotevant, H. D., & Clark, L. V.
(1979). Modeling and labeling as integrated determinants of chil-
dren’s sex-typed imitative behavior. Child Development, 50, 364–
371. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129411.

Montemayor, R. (1977). Children’s performance in a game and their
attraction to it as a function of sex-typed labels. Child
Development, 45, 152–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127761.

Mulvey, K. L., Miller, B., & Rizzardi, V. (2017). Gender and engineering
aptitude: Is the color of science, technology, engineering, and math
materials related to children’s performance? Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jecp.2017.03.006.

Paoletti, J. B. (1987). Clothing and gender in America: Children’s
fashions, 1890-1920. Signs, 13, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.
1086/494390.

Paoletti, J. B. (2012). Pink and blue: Telling the boys from the girls in
America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Picariello, M. L., Greenberg, D., & Pillemer, D. B. (1990). Children’s
sex-related stereotyping of colors. Child Development, 61, 1453–
1460. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130755.

Pomerleau, A., Bolduc, D., Malcuit, G., & Cossette, L. (1990). Pink or
blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life.
Sex Roles, 22, 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288339.

Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. (1998). Gender development. In W.
Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 933–
1016). New York: Wiley.

Ruble, D. N., Taylor, L. J., Cyphers, L., Greulich, F. K., Lurye, L. E., &
Shrout, P. E. (2007). Effect of gender constancy on age-related
changes in gender beliefs. Child Development, 78, 1121–1136.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01056.x.

Saito, M. (1994). A cross-cultural study on color preference in three
Asian cities: Comparison between Tokyo, Taipei and Tianjin.
Japanese Psychological Research, 36(4), 219–232. https://doi.org/
10.4992/psycholres1954.36.219.

Saito, M. (1996). A comparative study of color preferences in Japan,
China, and Indonesia, with emphasis on the preference for white.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 115–128. https://doi.org/10.2466/
pms.1996.83.1.115.

Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of
sex typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society of
Research in Child Development, 58(2), 1–74. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1166118.

Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H. M.
(2002). Stereotype performance boosts: The impact of self-
relevance and the manner of stereotype activation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 638–647. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.638.

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibil-
ity: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance.

Psychological Science, 10, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9280.00111.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat
and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 35, 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.

Sprafkin, C., Serbin, L. A., Denier, C., & Connor, J. M. (1983). Sex-
differentiated play: Cognitive consequences and early interventions.
In M. B. Liss (Ed.), Social and cognitive skills: Sex roles and child’s
play (pp. 167–192). New York: Academic Press.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual
test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.69.5.797.

Stein, A., Pohly, S., & Mueller, E. (1971). The influence of masculine,
feminine and neutral tasks on children’s achievement behavior, ex-
pectancies of success and attainments values. Child Development,
42, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127075.

Sweet, E. V. (2013, August). Same as it ever was? Gender and children’s
toys over the 20th century. Paper presented at the 108th annual
American Sociological Association meeting in New York, NY.

Taylor, C., Clifford, A., & Franklin, A. (2013). Color preferences are not
universal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4),
1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030273.

Thomas, R. M. (1999). Human development theories: Windows on
culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Van Yperen, N. W. (2003). Task interest and actual performance: The
moderating effects of assigned and adopted purpose goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1006–1015. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1006.

Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differ-
ences in spatial abilities: A metal-analysis and consideration of crit-
ical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. https://doi.org/
10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.250.

Wachman, R. (2012, March). Lego’s profits rise as it thinks pink. The
Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/business/
2012/mar/01/lego-profits-rise-pink.

Weisgram, E. S., Fulcher, M., & Dinella, L. M. (2014). Pink gives girls
permission: Exploring the roles of explicit gender labels and gender-
typed colors on preschool children’s toy preferences. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 35, 401–409. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004.

Wong, W. I., & Hines, M. (2015a). Effects of gender color-coding on
toddlers’ gender-typical toy play. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
44(5), 1233–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0400-5.

Wong, W. I., & Hines, M. (2015b). Preferences for pink and blue: The
development of color preferences as a distinct gender-typed behav-
ior in toddlers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1243–1254.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0489-1.

Yu, L., Winter, S., & Xie, D. (2010). The child play behavior and activity
questionnaire: A parent-report measure of childhood gender-related
behavior in China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 807–815.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9403-4.

Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E.,
Bornstein, M. H., & Greulich, F. K. (2009). The acquisition of
gender labels in infancy: Implications for gender-typed play.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 668–701. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0014053.

Zuckerman, C. (2017, January). Pink and blue: Coloring inside the lines
of gender. National Geographic. Retrieved from http://www.
nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/pink-blue-project-
color-gender/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_
content=link_fb20170105ngm-gendercolor&utm_campaign=
Content&sf49585588=1.

272 Sex Roles (2018) 79:260–272

https://doi.org/10.2307/1129498

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9950-6

https://doi.org/10.2307/1129411

https://doi.org/10.2307/1127761

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.006

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.006

https://doi.org/10.1086/494390

https://doi.org/10.1086/494390

https://doi.org/10.2307/1130755

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288339

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01056.x

https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.36.219

https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.36.219

https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.83.1.115

https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.83.1.115

https://doi.org/10.2307/1166118

https://doi.org/10.2307/1166118

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.638

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.638

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111

https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

https://doi.org/10.2307/1127075

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030273

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1006

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1006

https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.250

https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.250

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/01/lego-profits-rise-pink

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/01/lego-profits-rise-pink

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.06.004

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0400-5

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0489-1

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9403-4

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014053

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014053

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/pink-blue-project-color-gender/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20170105ngm-gendercolor&utm_campaign=Content&sf49585588=1

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/pink-blue-project-color-gender/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20170105ngm-gendercolor&utm_campaign=Content&sf49585588=1

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/pink-blue-project-color-gender/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20170105ngm-gendercolor&utm_campaign=Content&sf49585588=1

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/pink-blue-project-color-gender/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20170105ngm-gendercolor&utm_campaign=Content&sf49585588=1

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/pink-blue-project-color-gender/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20170105ngm-gendercolor&utm_campaign=Content&sf49585588=1

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

• Gender Labels on Gender-Neutral Colors: Do they Affect Children’s Color Preferences and Play Performance?

Abstract
Gender Schema Theory
Gender-Typed Color Preferences and their Origin
Behavioral Consequences
The Present Study
Method
Participants
Design and Procedure
Materials and Measures
Preferences for Pink Versus Blue
Manipulation of Gender Labeling
Preferences for Yellow Versus Green
Tangram Task

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1: Preferences for Pink Versus Blue
Hypothesis 2: Preferences for Yellow Versus Green
Hypothesis 3: Tangram Performance

Discussion
Gender-Typed Color Preferences in Chinese Children
Social-Cognitive Influences on Gender-Typing
Gender Labels, Gender Color-Coding, and Play Performance
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Practice Implications
Conclusion
References