Open-Ended Toys vs Electronic Toys: What Research Shows

Walk through any toy store and you’ll be confronted by packaging that reads like a developmental checklist. “Builds STEM skills.” “Develops critical thinking.” “Educational.” None of these claims require regulatory substantiation. They don’t need to cite studies. They just need to sound convincing to a parent who wants the best for their child and is making a $39 decision in under two minutes.

The research on what toys actually do to child development is considerably more specific — and more surprising — than the packaging suggests. Open-ended toys vs electronic toys is a real research question, and the answers challenge the assumptions behind a multi-billion-dollar “educational toy” industry.

Key Takeaways

• Research consistently shows that open-ended toys (blocks, LEGOs, art supplies, loose parts) produce longer play sessions, more diverse play behaviors, more parent-child language interaction, and higher measures of creativity than electronic toys with predetermined functions.
• Battery-powered toys marketed as educational tend to reduce the quantity and quality of parent-child verbal interaction during play, compared to traditional toys — a finding documented in research by Sosa (2016) and replicated in subsequent work.
• The toy industry’s “educational” label has no regulatory definition and is not correlated with research-validated developmental outcomes in independent studies.
• Play length is itself a developmental outcome: open-ended toys sustain play attention for longer durations, which is associated with deeper engagement, problem-solving, and creativity development.
• Context matters as much as toy type: the same toy can produce very different developmental outcomes depending on adult involvement and play environment.

The Problem With “Educational” Toys

The word “educational” on a toy box is a marketing term, not a category with agreed-upon standards. The Federal Trade Commission regulates deceptive advertising, but “educational” has no definition that triggers regulatory scrutiny. A toy that plays prerecorded number facts and a toy that requires children to build, hypothesize, and problem-solve can both carry the “educational” label on their packaging. They don’t produce the same outcomes.

This matters because parents — understandably — use the label as a shortcut. Time is limited. Toy research is not widely publicized. When two toys sit on the same shelf and one has a “STEM learning” badge, it feels safer to choose that one. The safety is illusory. In several studies, the toys with the most elaborate “educational” branding — those with buttons that teach letters and numbers, screens that respond to touch, and recorded voices naming colors — produced the weakest language development outcomes during play.

The mechanism isn’t mysterious once you understand what drives early childhood learning. Language acquisition, for example, is primarily a social process. Children learn words in the context of joint attention — shared focus on an object or activity — with an engaged adult who names, describes, and questions what they’re experiencing together. A toy that talks to a child replaces that interaction with a machine. The machine is more predictable and less responsive than a human. Children can’t generate contingent conversation with a toy that plays recorded phrases; they can only listen and react. The developmental opportunity in the moment is largely lost.

Open-ended toys don’t talk. That’s not a limitation — it’s their developmental mechanism. A block doesn’t tell a child what to do. It requires the child to generate the narrative, the structure, the problem, and the solution. A parent who plays alongside a child with blocks will produce more language — more words, more diverse vocabulary, more turn-taking — than the same parent playing alongside a child with a toy that does the talking.

What the Research Actually Says

The most cited study in this area is Sosa (2016), published in JAMA Pediatrics. Sosa recruited 26 families with infants ages 10–16 months and asked them to play with three sets of toys in their home: electronic toys (a baby laptop, a talking farm set, and a baby cell phone), traditional toys (wooden puzzles, shape sorters, and rubber blocks), and books. Sessions were audio-recorded. The results were striking. Electronic toy play produced the lowest quantity of parental words, the lowest number of adult responses to child vocalizations, and the lowest number of conversational turns — all measures associated with language development. Traditional toy play and book reading produced significantly more parent-child verbal interaction. The authors concluded that electronic toys “may be decreasing the quality and quantity of communication between parents and children.”

Zosh, Verdine, Golinkoff, and Hirsh-Pasek have published extensively on play quality and toy design. In Zosh et al. (2015), published in Frontiers in Psychology, the research team documented that open-ended toys support what they call “guided play” — a type of play that combines child-directed activity with adult scaffolding — more effectively than closed-ended or electronic toys. Guided play is associated with stronger learning outcomes than either pure free play or direct instruction in multiple domains, including STEM reasoning, language, and executive function.

Hirsh-Pasek and colleagues have built on this framework across multiple papers. In Hirsh-Pasek et al. (2015), published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, the authors review the science of playful learning and establish that the key features driving developmental outcomes are: active engagement, meaningful context, social interaction, and iterative thinking (trying, failing, adjusting). Open-ended toys inherently support all four. Electronic toys typically support only the first — active engagement — and in many cases reduce the third (social interaction) relative to simpler alternatives.

Block play specifically has one of the strongest research records of any toy category. Verdine et al. (2014), published in Child Development, found that block play ability at age 3 predicted spatial reasoning performance and math achievement at age 5, even after controlling for general intelligence and socioeconomic status. The mechanism appears to be that block play builds spatial reasoning — the ability to mentally rotate, visualize, and manipulate objects — which is a foundation for mathematical thinking, engineering reasoning, and reading maps and diagrams. No electronic toy in the research literature produces equivalent spatial reasoning effects.

LEGO and structured building sets occupy an interesting middle ground. Unlike pure loose parts, they have design intent — a picture on the box, pieces with specific connections. Research suggests that open-ended LEGO play (no instructions, child-chosen structure) produces stronger creativity and problem-solving outcomes than instruction-following LEGO play, which is primarily a procedural task. This parallels the broader finding: the more determined the toy’s function, the fewer opportunities it creates for the child to generate their own solutions.

Loose parts — a term from Nicholson’s (1971) theoretical work and now a recognized concept in child development — refers to natural and manufactured objects with no prescribed use: shells, rocks, fabric scraps, cardboard tubes, bottle caps. Research by Gibson et al. (2017) in Early Childhood Education Journal found that loose parts play environments produced higher levels of creativity, longer play durations, and more collaborative interaction than standard toy environments in preschool settings. The finding aligns with Zosh and colleagues’ framework: the absence of prescribed function forces children to generate purpose, which is where the developmental work happens.

Toy Types and Developmental Outcomes: What Research Measures

Toy Type	Language Development	Spatial/Math Reasoning	Creativity/Divergent Play	Play Duration	Parent-Child Interaction	Evidence Source
Electronic “educational” toys (buttons, recorded voice, screen)	Negative vs. baseline — reduces parent-child verbal interaction	Not measured as positive in available research	Low — predetermined outputs reduce child generation	Short — lose interest quickly	Reduced significantly	Sosa, 2016; JAMA Pediatrics
Traditional wooden/simple toys (blocks, shape sorters)	Positive — more parent verbal interaction	Positive — block play predicts spatial reasoning	Moderate — some but constrained by toy design	Moderate	Higher than electronic	Sosa, 2016; Verdine et al., 2014
Unit blocks and building sets (open-ended)	Positive — joint attention and labeling during play	Strongly positive — spatial reasoning, math prediction	High — child generates structures	Long	High during collaborative play	Verdine et al., 2014; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015
Art supplies (paint, clay, collage)	Positive — especially for describing and narrating	Not primary domain	Strongly positive — creativity, self-expression	Long	High when adult joins	Zosh et al., 2015
Loose parts (natural and found objects)	Positive — naming, describing unfamiliar objects	Moderate	Strongly positive — highest creativity scores in some studies	Very long	High — novelty prompts adult engagement	Gibson et al., 2017
Structured kits with instructions (LEGO set with booklet)	Neutral	Moderate — procedural spatial practice	Low to moderate — follows prescribed design	Moderate	Lower — child focused on instructions	Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015
Interactive screens/tablets with apps	Mixed — educational apps vary widely	Mixed	Low for most commercial apps	Short to variable	Reduced during app use	Zosh et al., 2015 (review)

What to Actually Do

Prioritize Toys With No Obvious Right Answer

The developmental test for a toy isn’t “does this teach facts?” It’s “does this require the child to generate solutions?” Blocks, clay, fabric, cardboard, and drawing tools all pass this test. Most battery-powered toys with buttons, screens, or predetermined sequences don’t.

This doesn’t mean electronic toys are never appropriate or enjoyable. It means that if you’re spending money on toys you believe will develop your child’s thinking, open-ended materials are consistently better bets than electronic devices marketed as educational.

Recognize That Your Presence Is the Variable That Matters Most

The research on guided play consistently shows that adult involvement — the right kind — amplifies the developmental value of any toy. The keyword is “the right kind.” Adult involvement that labels, questions, and responds to what the child is doing is associated with stronger outcomes. Adult involvement that directs, corrects, or takes over produces the same problems documented in the homework involvement research.

During block play: describe what you see. “You made a tall tower. How many blocks did you use?” During art: “What color are you mixing? What do you think will happen?” You’re not teaching a lesson — you’re generating the contingent conversation that is the mechanism of language and cognitive development.

Be Skeptical of Toy Marketing Claims

No toy company is required to demonstrate that its toy produces educational benefits before using the word “educational” on packaging. If a toy’s educational claims matter to your purchase decision, look for research citations — and check whether the research is independent or industry-funded. The gap between toy company claims and independent research findings is large and well-documented.

Think in Categories, Not Individual Toys

Rather than evaluating individual toys, think in developmental categories:

• Spatial reasoning: blocks, building sets, puzzles, tangrams
• Language and narrative: puppets, figurines, dramatic play props
• Creativity and process: art supplies, clay, loose parts
• Social reasoning: board games, cooperative play materials
• Mathematical thinking: counting materials, measuring tools, pattern blocks

A home environment that includes materials across these categories supports broader development than one optimized around a single high-profile product.

Be Realistic About Screen-Based Toys

Interactive apps and tablets are not interchangeable with passive TV, and they’re not equivalent to physical play either. Some interactive apps do produce learning outcomes in specific domains — particularly when designed around educational principles and used with adult involvement. But the research consistently shows that physical, three-dimensional play produces outcomes that screen-based interaction doesn’t replicate, particularly for spatial reasoning, fine motor development, and the social-cognitive benefits of joint attention with another person.

What to Watch for Over the Next 3 Months

Week 4: Observe one 15-minute play session closely. How many words do you produce during electronic toy play versus block or art play? Even an informal count will tell you something about which environment is generating language interaction. Most parents are surprised by the difference.

Month 2: Note play duration. Which toys sustain engagement longest without adult intervention? Open-ended materials typically show longer self-directed play as children get familiar with the range of possibilities. The sustained attention itself is worth observing — it’s a behavioral marker of engagement quality.

Month 3: Rotate toys. Research on toy rotation — removing most toys and introducing a subset, then cycling — shows that children play more creatively and for longer with a small number of toys than with an overwhelming selection. Three blocks and a cardboard box will produce more creative play than forty toys spread across a playroom floor.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are all electronic toys bad for development?

No. The research finding isn’t that electronics are harmful — it’s that battery-powered toys that produce predetermined outputs tend to reduce parent-child verbal interaction during play compared to traditional toys, and that open-ended toys produce more varied developmental outcomes across multiple domains. Interactive apps designed around established learning principles can produce specific learning outcomes. The problem is that most toys marketed as “educational” don’t meet that bar.

Are LEGO sets good for development?

LEGO has a strong research record for spatial reasoning development, with block construction ability predicting later math achievement. The distinction in research is between open-ended LEGO play (child chooses the structure) and instruction-following LEGO play (building from a kit). Both have value, but open-ended construction produces stronger creativity and problem-solving outcomes. Instruction-following is primarily procedural practice.

What age is best for blocks?

Large, simple blocks (like unit blocks or foam blocks) are appropriate from around 12–18 months, when children can stack and combine them. The developmental sequence moves from stacking, to bridging, to enclosures, to elaborate structures over the preschool years. Spatial reasoning benefits from block play have been documented as early as age 3, with predictive effects on math through age 5.

Do expensive toys produce better developmental outcomes?

Not in the research literature. The correlation between toy price and developmental outcome is, if anything, slightly negative — because expensive toys tend to be more feature-rich and electronic, which the research associates with reduced parent-child interaction. Cardboard boxes, craft supplies, and found natural objects are among the highest-performing materials in play research. Cost is not a reliable proxy for developmental quality.

What’s the biggest mistake parents make when buying toys?

Based on the research, the most consequential mistake is using the presence of “educational” features — buttons, screens, recorded vocabulary — as a proxy for developmental value. The second most consequential mistake is not playing alongside the child. The toy that produces the best outcomes with parent involvement will produce mediocre outcomes without it. The most important developmental variable in any play session is whether an engaged adult is generating contingent conversation with the child.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

Sources

1. Sosa, A. V. (2016). Association of the type of toy used during play with the quantity and quality of parent-infant communication. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(2), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3753

2. Zosh, J. M., Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2015). Talking shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12082

3. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Berk, L. E., & Singer, D. G. (2015). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721

4. Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Filipowicz, A. T., & Chang, A. (2014). Deconstructing building blocks: Preschoolers’ spatial assembly performance relates to early mathematical skills. Child Development, 85(3), 1062–1076. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12165

5. Gibson, J. L., Cornell, M., & Gill, T. (2017). A systematic review of research into the play value of loose parts. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0834-8

6. Zosh, J. M., Hopkins, E. J., Jensen, H., Liu, C., Neale, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Solis, S. L., & Whitebread, D. (2017). Learning through play: A review of the evidence. LEGO Foundation White Paper. https://www.legofoundation.com/en/why-play/

7. Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 62(1), 30–34.

8. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615569721