the relations between sex-typed play and preschoolers' social behavior

Sex Roles, l/ol. 12, Nos. 5/6, 1985

The Relations Between Sex-Typed Play

Preschoolers' Social Behavior 1

Ellen Cameron, Nancy Eisenberg, 2 and Kelly lryon Arizona State University

and

For decades toy choice has been a very popular measure o f children "s sex- role adoption. In the present study, the relations between choice o f masculine, neutral, or feminine toys and other social behaviors (sex typed and non-sex typed) were examined. The social behaviors (sociafizing, requesting assistance, prosocial behaviors, aggressive~defensive behaviors) and toy choices o f 33 preschool children were observed in their classrooms. Only two behaviors were found to be sex typed (socializing with peers and spontaneous prosocial behavioO, and both o f these behaviors were related to toy choice. Toy choice was also related to helping. Among boys, masculine toy choice was associated with requesting assistance from teachers. When toy choice was classified as masculine, androgynous, and feminine, only sociability toward peers was related to toy choice. The results are discussed in terms o f their implications for the continued use o f toy choice as a measure o f sex-role adoption.

In recent years researchers have conducted hundreds of studies concerning sex typing in children. Although a variety of methodologies has been used in this research, in the majority of studies sex typing has been assessed with indices of either toy preference (which toys children say they prefer) or toy adoption (actual toy play) (Eisenberg, 1983).

~The authors wish to express their gratitude to Rene Dodez for her assistance in data analysis and to the children and teachers at the Child Study Laboratory. We also appreciate the contributions of Drs. Laurie Chassin, Jerry Harris, Susan Somerville, Sbarlene Wolchik, and Antonette Zeiss. This research was comp]eted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the masters of arts degree at Arizona State University.

~'To whom correspondence should be addressed at the Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287.

601

0360-0025/85/0300-0601 $04.50/0 © 1985 Plenum Publishing Corporation

602 Cameron, Eisenberg, and Tryon

In general, researchers have assumed that the manner in which children play reflects their global sex typing, i.e., the masculinity or femininity of their social behavior and psychological functioning. Unfortunately, this assumption has infrequently been tested; few researchers have examined the relation between toy use (or preference) and other social behaviors. There does seem to be a low to moderate positive relation between sex typing of toy play and play with same-sex versus opposite-sex peers (Brush & Goldberg, 1978; Connor & Serbin, 1977; Eisenberg et al., 1984; Eisenberg-Berg et al., 1979). Moreover, there is some support for the assertion that the sex typing of toy play is associated with other sex-typed social behaviors; masculine-preferred play has been positively associated with teachers' reports of boys' (but not girls') anger and defiance (Sparfkin et al., 1982) and negatively related to teachers' reports of boys' (but not girls') conformity to rules (Sprafkin et al., 1982), while feminine-preferred play has been positively associated with preschool boys' conformity to rules (Sprafkin et al., 1982) and preschool girls' task persistence (Connor & Serbin, 1977). However, the existing research is far from consistent. For example, although masculine toy play has been positively associated with activity level and sociability for boys (Bates & Bentler, 1973) and negatively correlated with apathy/withdrawal among girls (Sprafkin et al., 1982), sex typing of toy play also has been unrelated to girls' activity level (Eisenberg-Berg et al., 1979) and to teachers' report of interest and participation in the classroom among preschoolers of both sexes (Sprafkin et al., 1982).

In brief, there is relatively little research suggesting that young children's toy play is related to other behaviors, and the results of the existing research are not entirely consistent. It appears that the sex typing of play may be related to the sex typing of other social behaviors, but more data, especially naturalistic data, are needed to determine the degree to which indices of sex typing in toy play reflect sex typing in other domains of social behavior. The primary purpose of the present study was to provide such data by examining the relations between toy play and a variety of preschoolers' social behaviors, both sex typed and non-sex typed.

To determine the association between toy choices and behaviors for which there are sex differences, one must be able to label various social behaviors as to the existence or nonexistence of gender differences. Labeling of this sort is problematic because the empirical data are often inconsistent with regard to gender differences, and researchers frequently disagree as to the interpretation of the pattern of empirical data (e.g., Block, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). However, there is fair consensus among researchers in recent years that boys are more aggressive than girls (Block, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) and that boys engage in more social

Sex-Typed Play 603

interactions with peers (but not adults) (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). In contrast, girls appear to seek help and assurance from others more than do boys (Block, 1976), although there appears to be no gender difference in dependency when defined as seeking close contact with figures of attachment or their surrogates (Block, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Finally, contrary to prevailing stereotypes, it appears that there are no clear gender differences in prosocial behaviors such as helping and sharing (Block, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Rushton, 1976; Radke-Yarrow et al., 1983), although one set of reviewers believes that girls are highly more prosocial than boys (Underwood & Moore, 1982). Based on the literature just reviewed, in the present study aggressive behaviors (taking, defending toys) and frequency of social interactions with peers were a pr ior i considered masculine social behaviors; seeking assistance (dependency) was considered a feminine behavior; and sociability with adults, as well as prosocial behaviors, was considered non-sex-typed behavior.

In recent years, many researchers have rejected the traditional con- ception that femininity and masculinity are negatively related ends of a unidimensional continuum (Kelly & Worell, 1977). According to more recent formulations, femininity and masculinity are orthogonal dimensions (Bern, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Moreover, androgyny, the condition in which an individual is high in both positive masculine and positive feminine traits, has been considered by some researchers to be more adaptive than being sex typed (Bern, 1974; Kelly & Worell, 1977). While it is not clear that androgyny really is associated with higher adjustment than is masculinity or femininity (e.g., Hall & Halberstadt, 1980; Helmreich et al., 1979), there is some evidence to suggest that both androgyny (Milgram et al., 1977) and the adoption of cross-sex traits (Hall & Halberstadt, 1980; Sprafkin et al., 1982) may be associated with psychological adjustment in children. Consequently, in the present study, the relations between androgynous toy choice (as well as sex-typed toy choice) and a variety of social behaviors were examined.

METHOD

Subjects

Participants were 18 male and 15 female preschool children from two classrooms (51-63 months; M = 55 months). All were Caucasian and from middle-class families. All children were included in the analyses concerning


sex differences in social behavior. However, due to the inadvertent loss of data relating to the sex typing of toy choice for one boy, only 32 subjects were included in analyses related to the toy choice.

Procedure

The children's behavior were videotaped through a one-way mirror for 15 min during the first hour of each class session (two or three times a week). The position of the camera was predetermined by dividing the classroom into sections and randomizing the order in which the sections would be taped. Each section was taped for 5 rain, so that a total of three segments was taped daily. Taping continued three times per week for approximately 9 weeks, until a minimum of 40 rain of observation was obtained for each child. Classes were taped during free play time while all the children were indoors.

In coding prosocial and defensive behaviors, all 15-rain segments were used. However, when coding toy preference behaviors, only the final 3 rain of the second 5-rain period and the third 5-rain section of each 15-rain segment were used. Because sex-typed play occurred relatively frequently, less observation time was needed to obtain adequate toy-choice data for the subjects.

Coding of Social Behaviors

The data were coded by three persons with 4 months' experience coding prosocial, defensive, and social behaviors from videotapes (two reliability coders and one coder who scored all the videotapes). Definitions of the social behaviors were as follows.

1. Sharing: The child gives away or allows another the temporary use of an object previously in the child's possession. a. Asked for sharing (in response to a verbal or nonverbal request). b. Spontaneous sharing (not in response to a request). c. Questionable sharing (the origin of sharing is unclear).

2. Helping: The child attempts to alleviate another's nonemotional needs, e.g., assists by giving information, helps another with a task, or offers an object not previously in the giver's possession. a. Spontaneous helping. b. Asked for helping. c. Questionable helping.

Sex-Typed Play 605

3. Dependent behavior ("asks for"): The child verbally or nonverbally asks another for assistance or for an object. a. Requests directed at teachers or teachers' aides. b. Requests directed at peers.

4. Sociability: This includes positive or neutral interactions with others, e.g., talking, playing, or smiling. a. Sociability with peers. b. Sociability with teachers.

5. Aggressive/defensive behaviors: a. Defensive reactions. The child physically or verbally refuses when

asked to help or share, e.g., pushes other child away, pulls toy away, or says "no" or "go away."

b. Impinge. The child grabs or takes an object away from someone else without asking for it.

For the prosocial, dependent, and aggressive/defensive behaviors, all instances of behaviors were noted. Sociability was coded in 30-sec intervals during which coders noted the number of different peers or adults with whom a child engaged in neutral or positive interactions. The amount of time a subject was on the videotapes was also obtained for each subject. Social behaviors and toy play were coded at different times, over 6 months apart.

Coding of Toy Choice

Toy classification was made based on findings in prior research. A toy was labeled as masculine or feminine (a) if it was masculine or feminine on both of Connor and Serbin's (1977) scales (one scale reflected significant differences in undergraduates' ratings of toys; the other, significant differences in children's actual play behaviors) or (b) if the toy was not listed in the Connor and Serbin article, only if it received an extremely sex-typed rating (a 1 or 5 on a five-point scale) from the undergraduate students and faculty who rated toys in the study by Eisenberg-Berg et al. (1979). Feminine toys included dolls and their accessories, kitchen toys, cradles, telephones, feminine clothing and makeup, record players, beads, and crayons and similar artwork; masculine toys included airplanes, balls, masculine clothing (dress up), blocks, tinker toys, trucks, and cars (balls and airplanes were infrequently available).

The amount of time a child played with masculine, neutral, and feminine toys was timed for each subject?

~lt was impossible to calculate the exact number of masculine, feminine, and neutral toys, available to the children due to the fact that the availability of various toys differed daily.


Reliabilities

Two correlation coefficients were obtained for each behavior, one for each reliability coder with the primary coder. Reliabilities for each reliability coder with the primary coder were above .69 for all behaviors. Mean reliabilities for both reliability coders with the primary coder were above .76 for all behaviors. Interrater segment on the timings of activities (computed for a subsample of the data) was .97 or higher.

RESULTS

Prior to analyses, the frequencies of prosocial, dependent, social, and impinging behavior were converted to the frequency per minute observed. For the defensive behaviors, the frequency of the behavior for each subject was divided by the number of opportunities for the child to defend himself or herself (number of toy requests and impinges directed at the child).

For all analyses relating to toy preference, toy preference was determined by dividing the amount of time spent with either feminine, neutral, or masculine toys by the time spent with any toys. For example, feminine toy preference was obtained by dividing the amount of time a child played with all feminine toys by the amount of time the child had toys of any type in his/her possession.

In order to classify children as masculine, feminine, or androgynous by means of the toy preference scores, Spence and Helmreich's (1978) scoring method for their well-known scale was modeled as closely as possible. According to this system, if a score is above the mean on either femininity or masculinity and below the mean on the other scale, an individual is considered sex typed. Individuals with scores above the mean for both femininity and masculinity are scored as androgynous. However, after the mean proportions of time spent with feminine, neutral, and masculine toys for the combined group were determined, we found that according to Spence and Helmreich's system, only two boys would have been considered feminine and none of the girls would have been considered masculine. This was due primarily to the low frequency of opposite-sex play. Consequently, in the present study, some modifications in the Spence and Helmreich classification system ~vere instituted. Specifically, the feminine group was composed of girls (N = 6) who were above the mean in feminine toy preference but below the mean in neutral and masculine toy preference and of boys (N = 5) who were below the mean in masculine toy preferences. The androgynous group consisted of girls (N = 4) who were above the mean in feminine toy preference and at least one other category

Sex-Typed Play 607

and of boys (N= 6) who were above the mean in masculine toy preference and at least one other category. Girls in the masculine group (N = 5) were below the mean in feminine toy preference, while boys (N = 6) in this group were above the mean for masculine toy preference and below the mean for the other two categories.

Sex Differences in Social Behaviors

For each general category of social behavior, gender differences were examined with a multivariate analysis (Hotel l ing-Lawley F approxima- tions). Thus, separate multivariate analyses were computed to examine gender differences in prosocial behaviors (sharing, helping, spontaneous, and asked for prosocial acts), dependent behaviors (requesting assistance from peers and requesting help from teachers), social behaviors (sociability with peers and sociability with teachers), and aggressive/defensive behaviors (impinging and defensive reactions). For the prosocial behaviors, analyses were computed in two different ways. First, an analysis was performed looking at prosocial behavior as has traditionally been done in the research [i.e., for two categories, sharing (both spontaneous and asked for) and helping (both types)]. Second, a multivariate analysis was computed for spontaneous prosocial behaviors (combined helping and sharing) and asked-for prosocial behaviors (combined helping and sharing).

As predicted, the multivariate analysis for sharing and helping was nonsignificant. However, when prosocial behavior was examined by looking at spontaneous behaviors and asked-for behaviors, the multivariate F was significant [F(2, 30) = 3.76, p < .03]. There was a significant difference in the amount of spontaneous behavior emitted by boys and girls [F(1, 31) = 4.61, p < .04] but no difference in the amount of asked-for prosocial behavior IF(l, 31) = 1.66]. Boys (M = .028) emitted a significantly greater amount of spontaneous behavior than did girls (M = .015).

According to the multivariate analysis for dependent behavior, there were no significant gender differences. Unexpectedly, boys and girls sought out teachers and peers for assistance at approximately the same rates. However, the multivariate analysis for sociability toward peers and teachers was highly significant [F(2, 30) = 8.09, p < .002]. Boys (M = 1.124/min) and girls (M = . 505) differed in the amount of socializing with peers [F(1, 31) = 15.49, p < .001] but not in the amount they socialized with teachers IF(l, 31) = .05]. Finally, contrary to prior research, the multivariate analysis for gender differences in defensive and impinging behaviors was not significant.


Correlates of Toy Choice

The proportions of time spent with feminine, neutral, and masculine toys are presented in Table I. According to a 2 (sex) X 3 (type of play) analysis of variance for these data, the main effect for type of toy was significant IF(2, 29) -- 13.05, p < .001] and the interaction effect was marginally significant [F(2, 29) = 2.85, p < .06]. The children spent more time playing with neutral toys than either masculine or feminine toys (Newman- Keuls test, p < .05). Moreover, according to tests of simple main effects, boys and girls differed in the proportion of time engaged in masculine IF(l, 31) = 22.80, p < .001] and feminine [F(1, 31) = 16.59, p < .001], but not neutral, toy play. As would be expected, boys spent a higher proportion of time playing with masculine toys than did girls, while girls played more than boys with feminine toys.

To determine if toy choice was related to behaviors that are considered sex typed in our culture (henceforth called sex-typed behaviors), the proportions of time spent with masculine, neutral, and feminine toys were correlated with the various behaviors. Prosocial behaviors were again examined in the traditional manner (sharing and helping) and as spontaneous versus asked-for behaviors.

Correlations between toy choice and sharing and helping are presented in Table II. Children (especially girls) who spent the greatest amount of their time playing with feminine toys were less likely than other children to help their peers. Girls (and the combined sample) with a neutral toy preference were also relatively likely to help others. The relation between helping and toy choice was not significant for boys. Moreover, there was not a significant association between sharing and toy use.

When prosocial behavior was examined in terms of spontaneous and asked for behavior, a somewhat clearer picture emerged. There was a strong negative relation between feminine toy use and spontaneous prosocial behavior, particularly for girls, and a strong positive relation between masculine toy use and spontaneous behavior for boys. For girls, neutral toy preference was also positively related to spontaneous prosocial behavior.

Because it seemed possible that the relation between toy choice and spontaneous behavior was due to gender differences in sociability (boys

Table I. Proportion of Time with Toys

Category

Feminine Neutral Masculine

Girls .3637 .5824 .0543 Boys .1549 .5436 .3011 All .2528 .5618 .1854

Sex-Typed Play 609

"U o

r../3

[.-,

r.-,

-4

i

I I ] I

I I I I

[ I I [ I I ] I I

] ] 1

[ [ [ I ] l

I I

~ . . ~ . . . I I I I { I I I

I ] 1 I I I

I I I i i I I

._ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -,u ~ = . o _ . . . ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' . =

o ' ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ E E " ~ -= ..= ~ . ~ v v


were significantly more social with peers than were girls and therefore might be more likely to initiate all types of social interactions), partial correlations between toy-choice scores and spontaneous prosocial behavior were computed to control for the effects of sociability. Even when sociability scores were partialed out, masculine toy choice remained highly correlated with spontaneous behavior for boys. Neutral toy choice also remained marginally related (p < . 10) to spontaneous behavior for girls. However, when the effect of sociability was controlled, the relation between feminine toy choice and spontaneous behavior decreased substantially and was nonsignificant.

The other social behavior for which there was a gender difference (sociability with peers) was also significantly related to toy choice. Although there were no relations between sociability toward peers and toy choice for girls, for boys and for the combined sample sociability was negatively related to feminine toy choice and positively related to masculine toy choice.

There were few significant relations between toy choice and social behaviors for which there was no gender difference. Asked-for prosocial behaviors were significantly correlated with only neutral toy use, and for only the total sample. Similarly, there were no associations between toy preference and aggressive/defensive behaviors, sociability with adults, or dependent peer-directed behaviors. However, there was a significant negative relation between masculine toy use and requesting assistance from teachers, particularly for boys.

Toy Choice as a Measure of Androgyny and Sex-Role Stereotyping

As mentioned previously, subjects were assigned to feminine, androgynous, and masculine group based on how their toy-choice scores compared to the mean of the total sample. In the final analysis, 11 children were included in the feminine group (6 girls and 5 boys), 10 in the androgynous group (4 girls and 6 boys), and 11 in the masculine group (5 girls and 6 boys). (There were no children who were below the mean on all types of play, and three boys and three girls were below the mean on both masculine and feminine play but above the mean in neutral play. Because neutral play could be considered androgynous, we did not have an undifferentiated group.) Separate 2 (sex) X 3 (classification: feminine, masculine, androgyny) multivariate analyses (Wi lks -Lambda F ap- proximations) were performed for each of the five categories of social behavior (sharing and helping, spontaneous and asked-for prosocial acts, dependent behavior, sociability, and aggressive/defensive behavior).

Sex-Typed Play 611

According to the multivariate analyses for sharing and helping, there were no significant effects of classification or sex. For spontaneous and asked-for behaviors, only the multivariate analysis for sex was significant [F(2, 25) = 4.69, p < .02]. As was noted previously, boys and girls differed in the amount of spontaneous behavior they emitted [F(I, 26) = 5.78, p < .02]. Moreover, there were no significant effects for dependent or aggressive/defensive behaviors.

The only social behavior that was significantly related to sex-role classification was sociability. The multivariate F's for both sex of subject and classification were significant IF(2, 25) = 12.24, p < .001, and F(4, 50) = 3.91, p < .008, respectively]. As was noted previously, boys were significantly more social toward peers than were girls [univariate F(1, 26) = 24.40, p < .001]. The analogous univariate F for sociability with teachers was not significant. Similarly, the univariate F for the effects of classification for sociability toward peers was significant [F(2, 26) - 6.64, p < .005], while the analogous univariate F for sociability toward teachers was not. Masculine (M = 1.038) and androgynous (M = .988) children were more social toward peers than were feminine (M = .625) children (Newman-Keuls tests, p < .05).

DISCUSSION

The results of this research are consistent with the conclusion that children's toy choices reflect, to some degree, the sex typing of their social behaviors, i.e., their patterns of sex-role adoption. Although toy choice was not related to all of the behaviors that had been identified as sex typed in previous research, those social behaviors for which there were clear gender differences in the present study were related to the sex typing of toy use.

There were gender differences for only two behaviors-spontaneous prosocial behaviors and sociability toward peers. Boys emitted a significantly greater amount of spontaneous prosocial behavior than did girls. Moreover, boys' masculine toy choices were positively related to the amount of spontaneous prosocial behavior, while feminine toy choice was negatively related to this social behavior, especially for girls. Similarly, boys were significantly more social toward peers than were girls, and masculine toy choice was positively related to sociability, while feminine toy choice was negatively related (both relations were significant for boys and in the expected direction for girls). This association did not appear to be due to masculine toys involving more group involvement because many feminine toys (e.g., dolls, kitchen toys), like some masculine toys (e.g., balls, large blocks), tended to be used by groups of children.


When toy choice was related to a behavior, the relation often held for one sex but not the other. This may have occurred because opposite-sex toy play was so infrequent, especially for girls, that significant relations between opposite-sex toy use and other behaviors were unlikely. The poverty of masculine toy use for females was probably due, in part, to the fact that all taping was done indoors. Feminine toy use was often encouraged while the children were indoors (i.e., the teacher would help children get started on an art activity), but masculine toy use was rarely initiated by the teacher. Moreover, although the number of toys was never counted, it is highly probably that the opportunity for feminine play was greater than for masculine play because many masculine activities generally occurred outdoors (sandbox, carpentry toys), while feminine toys such as dolls, kitchen toys, and art projects were found indoors.

A finding that raises questions about toy choice as a measure of sex- role adoption is that toy choice occasionally related to behaviors for which there was no gender difference in performance. A significant relation was found between helping and toy choice, although no gender difference was found for helping. However, a large sex difference in performance was found for spontaneous prosocial behaviors, with girls emitting significantly fewer spontaneous behaviors than boys - -a sex difference reflected in the significant relations between spontaneous prosocial responding and toy choices. The negative association between feminine toy choice and helping was probably due primarily to differences in the rate of performing spontaneous helping behaviors.

Requesting assistance from teachers was also related to toy choice even though there was no gender difference in this behavior. In specific, masculine toy choice was negatively related to requesting assistance from teachers, but only for boys. In her reevaluation of the studies in Maccoby and Jacklin's (1974) review, Block (1976) concluded that girls are more likely to ask for help than are boys. It may be that among young children, only the most masculine boys are reluctant to ask teachers for help, and therefore, when looking at the total sample of boys compared to the total sample of girls, no gender difference was found.

For all other behaviors for which no gender differences were found (impinging, defending, asking for assistance from peers, sociability toward adults, sharing), there were no more relations to toy choice than would be expected by chance. These findings suggest that toy choice does reflect preschoolers' sex-role adoption because toy choice usually was unrelated to behaviors for which there were no gender differences.

To summarize, preschoolers' toy choices tended to be related to those behaviors that distinguished between boys and girls and were unrelated to behaviors which did not differentiate between the sexes. Thus, it appears

Sex-Typed Play 613

that preschoolers' toy choices reflected, to a moderate degree, the broader range of behaviors indicative of sex-role adoption.

Another issue examined in the present study was the relation between social behavior and the masculinity, androgyny, and femininity of toy choices. There was little association between social behavior and toy choice; when toy choices were classified in a manner somewhat similar to that used in studies of androgyny, toy choice was unrelated to all behaviors defined as sex typed in the literature or the present study, except one behavior (sociability to peers). However, because there were gender differences for only two behaviors, it is questionable whether this study is a fair test of the association between androgynous toy choice and social behavior. Moreover, there were problems in using toy choices for classifying individuals as androgynous. Opposite-sex play was so rare that opposite-sex categories were defined by non-same-sex toy choice (neutral toy choices) rather than opposite-sex choices. This classification may be quite different than that typically used in the androgyny research and may account for the inconsistent findings.

In the present study, of the five behaviors for which there have been consistent gender differences in previous research, there were gender differences for only two. Thus, it seems important to examine closely each behavior in an attempt to understand the inconsistencies between the findings in the present study and those in previous research.

For some of the behaviors included in this investigation (prosocial and dependent behaviors), the results of previous studies and the conclusions of reviewers have been somewhat inconsistent. For these behaviors, the findings of the present study regarding gender differences do not pose a real problem. It may be that gender differences in these behaviors do exist but are small enough that they are found relatively infrequently in research studies (Underwood & Moore, 1982).

Behaviors for which the absence of a gender difference is more important are those that in the past have consistently been found to differ across the sexes. Researchers frequently have found that males and females differ in the number of social contacts with peers, and this finding was replicated in the present study. However, although aggression has repeatedly been found to occur more frequently for males than for females (Block, 1976; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), a gender difference in aggressive/defensive behaviors was not found in the present study. This pattern of results may have been due to the way in which the behavior was defined. Aggression, as it is typically defined, included behaviors such as hitting, name calling, etc. Aggression, in the present study, was defined as grabbing or defending objects (in part because real aggression was extremely uncommon in the children's preschool). Both of these behaviors


are usually mild forms of aggression. It may be that there are gender differences for only the more severe forms of aggression.

Unexpectedly, there was a strong gender difference in the frequency of spontaneous prosocial behavior, with boys emitting significantly more spontaneous behaviors than girls. It is possible that the high rate of activity and impulsivity typical of males (Block, 1976) may account for the high rate of spontaneous behaviors in boys. Alternatively, masculine and feminine activities may differentially elicit prosocial activities. Moreover, it is possible that girls emitted fewer spontaneous peer-directed prosocial behaviors because girls typically spend more time in the vicinity of the teachers than do boys (Serbin et al., 1973) and therefore might engage in more adult-directed prosocial actions. Results of this study suggest that the spontaneous versus asked-for distinction may be more appropriate than the sharing versus helping distinction when considering gender differences.

In conclusion, it seems that toy adoption, as it is typically used in the literature, does reflect, to some degree, the sex typing of children's social behavior. However, it is also clear that until more is known about gender differences in children, it will be difficult to further our understanding of sex-role development and the relations among various sex-typed behaviors.

REFERENCES

Bates, J. E., & Bentler, P. M. Play activities of normal and effeminate boys. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 20-27,

Bern, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny_ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 9, 20-27.

Block, J. H. lssues, problems and pitfalls in assessing sex differences: A critical review of the psychology of sex differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1976, 22, 283-308.

Brush, L. R., & Goldberg, W. A. The intercorrelation of measure of sex-role identity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Discipline, 1978, 19, 43-48.

Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. Behaviorally based masculine and feminine activity preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behawors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 1977, 48, 1411-1416.

Eisenberg, N. Sex-typed toy choices: What do they signify? In M. B. Liss (Ed,), Social and cognitive skills: Sex roles and children's play. New York: Academic Press, 1983.

Eisenberg, N_, Tryon, K., & Cameron, E. The relation of preschoolers' peer interaction to their sex-typed toy choices. Child Development, 1984, 55, 45-70.

Eisenberg-Berg, N., Boothby, R., & Matson, T. Correlates of preschool girls' feminine and masculine toy preferences. Developmental Psychology, 1979, 15, 354-355.

Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. Masculinity and femininity in children: Development of the children's personal attribute questionnaire_ Developmental Psychology, 1980, 16, 270-280.

Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. Psychological androgyny and sex-role flexibility: A test of two hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Soctal Psychology, 1979, 10, 1631-1644.

Jacklin, C. N., & Maccoby, E. E. Social behavior at thirty-three months in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 1978, 49, 557-569.

Kelly, J. A., & Worell, J_ New formulations of sex roles and androgyny: A critical review. Journal of Consulting and Climcal Psychology, 1977, 45, 1101-1115.

Sex-Typed Play 615

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C_ N. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stan- ford University Press, 1974.

Milgram, R. ~ . , Yitzhak, V., & Milgram, N. A. Creative activity and sex-role identity in elemen- tary school children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1977, 45, 371-376.

Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. Prosocial dispositions and behavior. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Manual of Child Psychology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983.

Rushton, J. P. Socialization and the altruistic behavior of children. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 898-913.

Serbin, L. A., O'Leary, D. O., Kent, R. N., & Tonick, I. J. A comparison of teacher response to the preacademic and problem behavior of boys and girls. Child Development, 1973, 44, 796-804.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.

Sprafkin, C., Serbin, L. A., & Elman, M. Sex-typing of play and psychological adjustment in young children: An empirical investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1982, 10, 559-568.

Underwood, B., & Moore, B. The generality of altruism in children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development ofprosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1982_

the relations between sex-typed play and preschoolers' social behavior

Documents