[DanBC]

Depends how good the research is. But, knowing how much money is in the toy industry (an eye watering amount, even compared to some tech businesses) I suppose it's good.

But then just because it's researched doesn't mean it's good. Why do girls now prefer the narrative form of a previously creative toy? Why do lego blocks need a back story? Is that something that girls have always wanted; is it something that's created by changes in society; is it beneficial to girls? Is it possible harmful to boys to not have the narrative toys? (Although, with all the ROBOT BATTLE IN SPACE stuff hat lego has done for years I suppose they're just re-balancing an existing skew).

There's a lot of research about the "princess phase" which is why most toys for girls are boxed in that disgusting pink - purple combination.

This book is quite good. The biases are clear.

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Real-Toy-Story-Consumers/dp/0552...)

[amirmc]

Yup, just because it's researched doesn't mean it was good research (from a general standpoint). Since this is Lego's 6th attempt at reaching this market, I'll assume they've tried to take extra care. It's even possible that the work was done in collaboration with university academics (with peer-reviewed papers as a result). If it doesn't work, I'm sure they'll figure out what went wrong and make a 7th attempt in due course.

The questions you pose are excellent research topics in their own right (if reworded slightly). I really hope there are people out there looking into them. I remember reading some autism-related research that described how even newborn babies exhibited male/female differences (very contentious at the time and I don't know how the field developed).