23 Mar 2015
The focus of this research was gendered toys and the perceptions children and their parents hold about these types of toys, it aimed to investigate childrens reasoning about gendered toys and looked to establish if a link exists between the perceptions of parents and the toy preferences of children. Gendered toys can be described as being toys which are generally thought of as being suitable for one gender over the other, for example wheeled toys for males and dolls for females (Pleil and Williams, 2008; Francis, 2010). Throughout this research the term gender typical toys will be used to describe toys which are traditionally considered most appropriate for the sex choosing them, the term gender atypical is used to describe toys traditionally thought of as being suitable for a child of the opposite gender to the sex of the child selecting them. This subject is especially significant today, as it appears that the manufacturing and marketing of toys is more gender stereotyped now than previously; with the vast majority of toy stores having aisles, or even entire floors dedicated to a specific gender (Francis, 2010). Therefore, today's children are being exposed to gender stereotyped toys to a greater degree than their counterparts would have been in the past (Francis, 2010).
Looking at research which sought parent's experiences of what toys their children preferred has demonstrated that young children vary vastly when it comes to their choice of toys and that they have very clear opinions of what toys are most suited to each gender (Pleil and Williams, 2008). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that children develop mental schemas of objects, which are gender stereotyped from a very young age (Ruble, Martin and Berenbaum, 2006). The gender stereotypes and gender stereotypical behaviour that forms during early childhood are an interesting and important issue, as it has been established that these gender notions can influence a child's career choices as adults (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010; Francis, 2010). Furthermore, toy choice in itself is an important issue research has shown that toys teach children vital life skills, however, these skills vary depending on which gender the toy is stereotypically aimed at (Fagot and Leinbach, 1983; Francis, 2010). It has been argued that the toys stereotypically aimed each gender foster totally different social and cognitive skills, with boys toys developing problem-solving skills whilst girls toys develop nurturing and caring skills (Cherney and London, 2006; Francis, 2010). Therefore, the toys children play with, along with children's gender stereotypical views of them are important and valid issues to research as the impact is long term and has implications in adulthood.
There are several theoretical perspectives on how children come to acquire gender stereotypes and gendered behaviours. The social cognitive theory of gender development postulates that children learn gender norms and gendered behaviours through observing their environment and the people within it; children observe the behaviours of people in their environment and replicate them. Gendered behaviours are reinforced through the reward and punishment of behaviour, considered appropriate or inappropriate by others that the child experiences (Bussey and Bandura, 1999). Therefore, according to this standpoint the concept of gender and the acquisition of gendered behaviour is a socially constructed phenomenon. However, research conducted on Verve and Rhesus monkeys has established that young primates display the same gendered behaviours observed in their human counterparts (Alexander and Hines, 2002; Hassett, Siebert and Wallen 2008). This research suggests that gender stereotypical toy preferences may be a reflection of the biological differences between males and females rather than being a direct result of socialisation (Pleil and Williams, 2008). Therefore, according to this standpoint gendered behaviour is as a result of biological differences between the sexes. Despite this evidence, suggesting that children may be biologically predisposed to being gender stereotypical in their toy preferences, this paper is underpinned by the hypothesis that children's social interactions, especially with their parents, are influential on their perception and choice when it comes to toys.
The overarching approach of this research was a case study, employing document analysis, questionnaire and interview techniques of data collection. The central research question for this study was "How do children and their parents perceive and reason about gendered toys and what, if any, connection exists between these perceptions in relation to children's toy preferences". Four aims were identified and addressed by formulating four research questions, in order to answer the central research question. These research questions were:
What are children's toy preferences and how, if at all, are these preferences interrelated to the gender of the child?
How do children reason about their toy choice when deciding which toys they wish to play with?
What are parental perceptions of the suitability of gendered toys?
How, if at all, are parental perceptions of toys interlinked with toy choice and the reasoning behind toy choice, of children?
This review will examine issues relating to the perspectives held by children and parents on gendered toys. Firstly it will examine children's toy preferences, exploring the gender dimorphic nature, which research has uncovered regarding children's toy choices. Then the review will then explore the reasoning behind children's toy choices, parental perspectives on the suitability of toys in relation to gender and finally the influence of parents on children's perspective and choice.
It has been put forward that the vast majority of experiments designed to assess children's toy preferences were not true reflections of what children would choose in real life (Down, 1983). Down (1983) argues that prior experiments were too restrictive, only offering a very limited choice between small selections of typically male or female toys, which rarely offered a gender neutral choice. In his own research Down assessed elementary school aged children's toy preferences by utilising children's letters to Santa Claus, allowing for an unrestricted, ecologically valid method of ascertaining children's preferences in a real life, naturalistic way. Down found that many of the toys selected by the children were not traditionally gendered toys, rather they were toys which could be considered gender neutral; girls were found to be especially likely to request gender neutral toys whilst boys requested gender typical and gender neutral toys in equal measure. Nevertheless, Down's research also demonstrated that boys and girls both prefer gender typical toys over gender atypical toys, a notion which has been supported through the findings of subsequence research (Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney et al, 2003).
Recent research which, like Down's work offered a holistic insight into children's toy preferences, was conducted by Cherney and London (2006). The child participants in this study were asked to list their favourite toys, the participants were free to choose whatever toys they wished. Considerable differences were found in the favourite toys that were chosen based on the child's gender, replicating the previous finding of Down; both boys and girls preferred gender typical over gender atypical toys. They also discovered that whilst boy's preferences became slightly more masculine as the child aged, that in contrast girl's toy preference became less feminine with age.
More recently it has been discovered that even the youngest children, infants aged between 3 and 8 months, appear to show a preference for gender typical toys. Alexander, Wilcox and Woods (2009) investigated whether infants display a preference for gender typical toys, this was ascertained using eye-tracking technology to measure the time the infants spent focused on either a truck or a doll. It was found that girl infants showed a preference for the doll, whilst the boy infants spent more time focused on the truck. The research of Alexander, Wilcox and Woods, supports the notion of a biological foundation for gendered preferences of toys. The notion of a biological underpinning for children's gender-based preferences has been highlighted through research conducted with infant monkeys (Alexander and Hines, 2002; Hassett, Siebert and Wallen 2008), as these preferences are being observed at an age before it is commonly accepted that children have established gender identity and gender typical behaviour.
However, it cannot be ignored that some of the research discussed above (Alexander and Hines, 2002; Hassett, Siebert and Wallen, 2008 and Alexander, Wilcox and Wood, 2009), is guilty of the very criticism put forward by Down (1983). These studies only offered the participants a choice between limited arrays of gendered toys with none offering participants a gender neutral option. Therefore, it could be argued that these studies do not demonstrate well-rounded picture of children's toy preferences and therefore the validity of these findings could be called into question. Nevertheless, the findings of these studies, when considered alongside the more well-rounded research discussed above (Down, 1983; Cherney and London, 2006) clearly show that children, of both the human and primate variety, demonstrate a marked preference for gender typical over gender atypical toys, therefore providing a valid and important insight into children's toy preference and the difference between the preferences of girls and boys.
Through previous research, several key factors have emerged that influence a child's reasoning about whom toys are suitable for. Several studies have found that children's reasoning about who else would enjoy playing with a particular toy is often egocentric. It has been found that when a child likes a particular toy they often reason that other children of their own gender would also like the toy and conversely children of the opposite gender would not like it (Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney, Harper and Winter, 2006). These studies show that young children often used egocentric reasoning when thinking about what other children would like, they conclude that what they enjoy others of their own sex would also enjoy and those of the opposite sex would not.
However, Martin, Eisenbud and Rose (1995) established that when toys are labelled as being for a certain gender, it is highly influential on children's reasoning about who would enjoy that toy. They presented children with attractive, but unfamiliar toys and asked them to rate the toys appeal to themselves and other children, the results were concurrent with the previous research of Carter and Levy (1988), the children's reasoning was egocentric; they concluded that what they liked other children of their gender would like. However, when they presented the children with another set of toys, applying gender labelling to them, they uncovered a very different reaction. The children used the gender labels to reason about their own and others preference for that toy, even with a very attractive toy, if it was labelled for the opposite gender the children were less favourable towards that toy and reasoned that other children of their own gender wouldn't like it either. Therefore, this research clearly demonstrates the power of gender labels to influence children's reasoning and preferences when choosing what toys they themselves would enjoy as well as when considering what other children would enjoy.
Another common influence on children's gender-based reasoning uncovered by recent research conducted by Cherney and Dempsey (2010) is gender association; children would habitually reason that a toy was most suitable for a particular gender based on the gender of the toy itself. An example of this was when a swimming pool, a toy deemed to be gender neutral, was classified as being a 'girl's toy' because it featured Dora the Explorer whom is herself a girl. Furthermore, this research has also identified toy colour as being another factor which influences children's reasoning and toy preferences. Using gender ambiguous and neutral toys, this research aimed to establish how young children classify toys with less notable gender typical features, finding that colour was commonly cited as a reason for the classification of toys by gender (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010). This finding could be due to the increasing trend seen in recent years for toy manufacturers to commonly market the same toy, which is often a gender neutral toy such as a camera, in gender typical colours. With the pink option being marketed at girls and the blue version marketed at boys.
The studies outlined above demonstrate that children's reasoning about toy preferences and suitability is influenced by a number of factors and is often egocentric. However the common thread running throughout all these studies is that outside influences, such a gender labels and colour greatly influences the toys children like. The personal, egocentric reasoning employed by children in the absence of outside influences, coupled with the change in children's reasoning that comes with outside influences clearly shows that children are highly aware of societal and cultural 'norms' and it would appear that, on the whole, children tend to conform to these gender 'norms' when it comes to the toys they considered to be most appealing.
During the late 1970s an observational study was conducted, which investigated how parents praise and punish children's behaviour, it was found that the types of behaviours parents praise or punish differ for boys and girls. The study discovered that boys were punished when they played with gender atypical toys and praised when they played with gender typical toys, it also found that girls were punished for rough and tumble play (Fagot, 1978). Therefore, it would seem from this research that parents have clear views on what toys and play styles are suitable for either sex and that they actively discourage their children from engaging in play or using toys traditionally stereotyped as belonging to the opposite sex. This finding was supported by later research, investigating parental participation in children's play (Roopnarine, 1986), which discovered parents most often participated when their children were playing with toys traditionally considered appropriate for their gender. Therefore, these studies (Fagot, 1978; Roopnarine, 1986) suggest that parents, either directly through punishment or indirectly through their lack of participation, encourage their children to prefer gender typical toys and reject gender atypical ones.
However, more recently a study conducted by Wood et al (2002) investigating parental views of gender stereotyped toys found that traditional gender categorisation of toys did not reflect the parents views on toy suitability. This study found that many toys traditionally considered to be either male or female, were categorised as being gender neutral by the parents. The physical features of the toys used in this study were controlled to limit factors, such as colour, from influencing gender categorisation. Therefore, the parents must have made their decision based on something outside of the physical features of the toys; the researchers believed this could be due to a shift in recent times of the typical gender role stereotypes (Wood et al, 2002). Nevertheless, this study discovered that parents believed gendered toys to be most desirable to the gender the toy is traditionally assigned to. This research also observed parents and children at play to ascertain which toys were utilised most often by each gender. While observing boys and parents typically masculine toys were played with the most, a finding consistent with previous studies however, when observing girls and parents there was more flexibility, playing with feminine and neutral toys equally which deviates from previous studies. Therefore the shift in how parents categorised toys uncovered by this research did not reflect in their real life play situations with their children (Wood et al, 2002).
The findings of these studies (Fagot, 1978; Roopnarine, 1986) suggest that parents have differing views on what toys and activities are suitable for children based on their gender, and that they reinforce these views through their behaviour when interacting with their child. However, more recent findings (Wood et al, 2002) suggest that parents view of traditionally gender stereotyped toys is evolving and that modern parents are reinterpreting the traditional roles of gendered toys. Nevertheless, despite this shift in how parents are categorising children's toys, Wood et al (2002) still found that parents believed stereotypically gendered toys to be most desirable to the gender typically associated to them, showing that there is still a gender division in children toys.
It has been argued by Mischel (1966) that children learn gendered behaviours prior to realising that they belong to a particular gender, this occurs through a process of modelling and reinforcement by adults. Furthermore, as previously discussed the praise and punishment delivered by parents differs depending on the sex of the child, with girls and boys both being praised for gender typical behaviour and punished for gender atypical behaviour (Fagot, 1978). These two pieces of literature suggest that children learn gender labelling and gendered behaviours through the social interactions they experience in their early lives. This standpoint on children's acquisition of gender labels and gendered behaviour is called social learning theory and opposes the cognitive-developmental theory of children acquisition of gendered behaviours as proposed by Kohlberg (1966). The cognitive-developmental theory argues that children develop an awareness of their own gender before developing an understanding of the typical behaviour associated with each gender (Kohlberg, 1966). Through the lens of the social learning theorist gendered behaviours are viewed as being a precursor of the gender development process, whereas cognitive-developmental theorists sees gender development as being a causal factor in children acquiring gendered behaviours (Weinraub et al, 1984). Therefore from a social learning perspective parents, as young children's primary socialiser, have a massive potential to influence the existence of gender behaviour in their child and therefore may influence the types of toys children choose to play with.
Research conducted investigating young children's gender identity, toy choices and family characteristics has found that parents do hold an influence over their child's toy choice (Weinraub et al, 1984). However, this influence was not universal for mothers and fathers. The study found that in the case of mothers it is their occupation, not their sex-typed personality traits, which affect children's development of gender labelling and therefore their toy choices. On the other hand, the study found that in the case of fathers, sex-typed personality traits strongly influenced the development of gender labels in children, and their toy preferences, especially in the case of boys (Weinraub et al, 1984). However, another study conducted shortly after found that contrary to previous research suggesting fathers as being the primary force supporting the development of children learning gender labels, that mothers and fathers were equally involved (Roopnarine, 1986). The results of these studies (Weinraub et al, 1984; Roopnarine, 1986) demonstrate that parents, especially fathers of boys, can influence the gender labels that children develop, and in turn the choices children make about toys and support the hypothesis proposed by social-learning theorists.
The overarching research design of this research was that of the case study. This design was chosen as it enables real life participants to be examined in a real life situation, allowing for an in-depth insight into the phenomenon being investigated (Cohen et al, 2011). The phenomenon this research project examined was gendered toys; it investigated how children and their parents perceive and reason about such toys and aimed to establish whether there is a link between the perceptions of parents and the preferences of children. A further benefit of the case study approach is that it allows findings to be presented in a clear and concise manner, enabling the reader to have a clearer understanding of the ideas being presented (Cohen et al, 2011).
Case studies have been defined as being the study of a single instance within a bounded system, for example a school, class, community (Adelman et al, 1980; Creswell, 1994 cited in Cohen et al, 2011). However, it has been put forward that such a tight definition is not an appropriate definition of the case study approach. Yin (2009) argues that the line between the phenomenon being investigated and the context where it is being investigating is not clear-cut; therefore it is important contextualise case studies by employing strategies such as rich descriptions and details. Nevertheless, this case study did investigate a phenomenon within a bounded system, focusing on families from within a community whose children all attend the same school. The case study approach was chosen for this research as the approach is particularly useful in establishing cause and effect, and the aim of this research was to establish if parental perceptions influence children choices. In addition, case studies allow the effects of a phenomenon to be observed within a real life perspective, allowing for a better understanding of how the context of a situation influences both cause and effect (Cohen et al, 2011).
Case studies are excellent for providing both the researcher and the reader with an in-depth and rich understanding of the phenomenon being investigated. Nevertheless, as a case study is usually focused upon a fairly narrow line of inquiry, focused on a specific phenomenon or a single setting, it does have its limitations. A major, often cited limitation is the lack of generality; finding and conclusion drawn by a case study cannot be applied to a wider context than that within which it was conducted (Robert-Holmes, 2011). It is therefore of upmost importance that researchers conducting case studies do not attempt to make claims applying the knowledge obtained through a case study universally.
This research employed three data collection methods within its case study research design, these were, questionnaires, documentary research and an interview. Three methods of data collection were employed in order to provide the study with triangulation. Triangulation is the process of employing two or more methods of data collection when researching an aspect of human behaviour, allowing the researcher to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the behaviour they are investigating (Cohen et al, 2011; Robert-Holmes, 2011). Triangulation is important as it provides the research with validity, which in turn makes the conclusions drawn by research more believable to the reader (Mukherji & Albon, 2009). An overview of these methods and their benefits and limitations, will follow.
Questionnaires can be a useful tool for gathering data for research as they quickly collect large quantities of data, and due to the standardised nature of the questionnaire the data collected is easily comparable (Willan, 2010; Robert-Holmes, 2011). However, it must be noted that questionnaire data lacks the depth and breadth of interview data, which offers a more in-depth insight of people's thoughts, beliefs and attitudes (Robert-Holmes, 2011). Whilst questionnaires can be very useful, being easy to distribute and a comparatively cheap and quick method of collecting large quantities of data, they can prove problematic as getting responses back can often be challenging (Willan, 2010; Robert-Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, the formulation of a questionnaire can be difficult to get right requiring careful consideration; it is especially easy for questionnaires to lack clarity, be ambiguous and to be leading to its participants (Willan, 2010). Therefore, special consideration needs to be taken to ensure the questions are formulated in a way to ensure the necessary data is collected, whilst making sure that the questionnaire itself is not overly long or complicated. An overly long or complex questionnaire can put off potential participants, which in turn may result in a low response rate which then effects the breadth of the data collected (Oppenheim, 1992; Foody, 1993). For this reason, the questions for this projects questionnaire were designed to be clear and concise furthermore, unnecessary questions were omitted from the questionnaire in an attempt to maximise participation.
Documentary research can provide an insight into human social activity, briefly speaking a document can be describes as being a record of an event or a process, which is produced by an individual or group (Cohen et al, 2011). Documentary research can help researchers understand current practices; however through analysing historical documentation researchers can use this method to investigate how historical perceptions have influenced current thinking (Willan, 2010; Cohen et al, 2011). Documentary evidence can come in many different formats and is not merely the analysis of written documents, such as policy documents and letters; documentary evidence can be obtained from various multimedia sources such as radio, films and emails (Willan, 2010; Cohen et al, 2011). The documents analysed by this research were collages of favourite toys produced autonomously by the child participants; it was used to provide a current picture of the children's toy preferences obtained with minimal adult influence. However, documents do not provide information automatically, they require careful analysis and interpretation to reveal the information contained within them. Therefore, the worth of data obtained through documentary analysis is highly variable, depending on how able the person analysing it is to fully understanding its meaning (Cohen et al, 2011).
The final method of data collection employed by this study was the semi-structured interview, employing the use of an interview guide which, while listing areas to be discussed was not a fixed, premeditated interview schedule as would be used in a structured interview (Robert-Holmes, 2011). The semi-structured technique was selected over the structured technique as it provides a good degree exploration whilst minimising the potential to wander from the intended area of discussion (Willan, 2010; Robert-Holmes, 2011). Semi-structured interviews centre firmly on the participant and their beliefs and opinions, rather than the researcher, which is the case in a structured interview; there is far more scope for the participant to influence the course the interview takes. When conducting a semi-structured interview the researcher acts as a facilitator encouraging the participants to vocalise their opinions about the matter being discussed (Robert-Holmes, 2011).
The interviews for this study were conducted as a group in the children's school environment, additionally the researcher was known to these children from their role as a volunteer in the class. These measures were taken to ensure that the children felt as comfortable as possible, as feeling intimidated or uncomfortable by the situation could potentially affect the success of the interview (Robert-Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, it was felt that building a good rapport with the children, through volunteering in their classroom before commencing the data collection was imperative. This was because children are generally not used to unfamiliar adults asking them about their thoughts, feelings or experiences, therefore good researcher-child relationships are fundamental for successfully interviewing children (Folque, 2010).
Before data collection commenced a letter explaining the aims and data collection methods of this research was presented to both the school and the parents of the children participating in the research. This was to ensure that all parties involved were aware of how and why the research was being conducted; a Criminal Records Bureau enhanced disclosure certificate was also shown to the school and made available for the parents to view to demonstrate that the research was being conducted by a suitable adult.
Through giving participants transparent information on the aims and data collection methods of the research allowed the adult participants to give their informed consent to participate on the research. Parents were asked for their permission for the children to participate, additionally the children were briefed on their part in the research and it was made clear to all parties that their participation was in no way compulsory and that they were free to withdraw at any point. Copies of the letters sent to the school and parents, along with the ethical approval form for this research can be found in the appendices (See Appendix 2 and 3).
In order to collect information about the toy preferences of the children participating the document analysis method of data collection was used, the documentary evidenced analysed was collages created by the children of their favourite toys. Full details of this method can be found in the methodology chapter of this research project (See 3.1).
The aim of using document analysis was to ascertain the children's toy preferences in a naturalistic and unbiased way. It allowed the children to complete a collage of their favourite toys autonomously, with minimal outside influences. This information was required to determine to what extent, if at all, children prefer gender stereotypical toys.
In total 31 families of Year 2 children at a West Midlands primary school were contacted with details the research and asked if they would be interested in participating. In total 10 families expressed an interest in taking part, giving a response rate of 32.2 %, 4 families were then selected to participate. The families selected were of white British background and from intact family units. These families were chosen because of the commonality of their backgrounds, in order to minimise variables due to ethnicity, culture and family dynamics. The sample group consisted of four children; 2 boys and 2 girls aged between 6 and 7years old.
The children were provided with a toy catalogue, featuring a wide range of different types of toys. The children were also provided with a choice of coloured paper, scissors and glue. Adults were on hand to assist the children with cutting out and sticking if this was needed.
The activity was child led but supervised by adults, this was to minimise adult influence on the children's choices whilst ensuring the activity was safe. The activity was conducted in the children's school environment, to ensure the children felt comfortable in order to minimise any negative effect on either the participants or the data collected (see 3.1). The children were told that they could browse through the catalogue, cut out the toys which they favoured and use them to make their collage. The children were also informed that if they could not find a toy they liked in the catalogue they could draw it or write about it. Samples of toy collages the children made can be found in the appendix of this project (See Appendix 4).
The data obtained from the children's toy collages was grouped in categories based on the types of toys chosen by the children. There were 3 categories of toy identified: gender stereotypical toys, gender atypical toys and gender neutral toys. The information presented in the literature review informed which types of toys fitted in each of these respective sections. This data was then used to create graphs, which visually represent the data collected.
At the start of the activity the children were given a selection of coloured paper to choose from, all the children selected a gender stereotypical colour; both girls chose pink, the boys chose blue and green. The children selected 56 toys in total, 46 toys were classified as gender stereotypical (82.2%), 7 were classified as gender neutral (12.5%) and 3 toys were classified as gender atypical (5.3%). The girls selected 32 toys in total, 26 were classified as gender typical (81.25%), 3 were classified as gender atypical (9.375%) and 3 were classified as gender neutral (9.375%). The boys selected 24 toys in total, 20 were classified as gender typical (83%) and 4 were classified as gender neutral (17%), no toy choices were classified as gender atypical for the boys. Figure 1 offers a visual representation of the children's toy choices.
An informal, semi-structured interview was conducted alongside the favourite toy collage activity, which was conducted in a group within the school environment (see 4.1), to ascertain the children's opinions whilst keeping the interview in a concrete context. Full information on this method is included in the methodology chapter (see 3.1) of this project.
The aim of these informal, semi-structured interviews was to two fold. Firstly, it aimed to determine how children reason about their own choices; secondly it aimed to establish how children perceive the suitability of toys they favoured for other children and the reasoning behind this.
The same children who took part in the favourite toys activity (see 4.1) were informally interviewed as they worked on their toy collages.
The interview was semi structured and used an interview guide, which was a list of areas to discuss with the children and was drafted before the interview commenced, no formal interview schedule was drawn up to allow for more exploration of the children's views. A voice-recording device was used to record the conversations with the children, transcripts of the interviews can be found in the appendices (See Appendix 5).
The interview was conducted as the children completed their favourite toy collages, in order to ensure the conversation was held within a concrete context. The interview was conducted within a group as it was felt that one-on-one interviews could potentially be intimidating to the children, affecting their ability to share their thoughts (Robert-Holmes, 2011).
After being transcribed, comments made by the children were coded and 7 categories emerged, each relating to different types of reasoning being applied, these were; physical features play specific, collaboration, enjoy ability, collectability, gender stereotyping and character featured. Additionally, 3 categories emerged relating to whom else children felt would like the same toys they did, these were; same sex, opposite sex and either sex. This data was then visually represented using charts, which can be found in the following section of this project. The data was then cross referenced with the views of the children's parents, obtained in the questionnaires (see 4.3), to identify if any links exist between the reasoning and perceptions of the children and the opinions of their parents.
The children offered 31 distinct reasons for liking the toys they chose, 16 offered by the girls and 15 offered by the boys. Of the 16 reasons given by the girls, 4 reasons (25%) related to the physical appearance of the toys, the following reasons were given twice each (12.5% each); specific to play, collaborative play, enjoy ability of toy, collectability of toy, character featured on the toy, in addition it was mentioned 2 times (12.5%) that the toy was liked because it was 'girly'.
In the case of the boys, 5 reasons of the 15 given (33.3%) were specific to play, toy collectability was mentioned 3 times (20%), the following were mentioned twice each (13.3% each); physical features, collaborative play and the enjoy ability of the toy, with the character features being mentioned once (6.7%). Figure 2 below visually represents the reasons the children gave for favouring the toys selected by them.
The children were also asked to think about whom else might like the toys they liked; the boys and girls each responded to this 8 times. The answers given by both sexes were identical; they specified 4 times each (50%) that children of their own sex would also like the toy, once (12.5%) that the opposite sex would like the toy and 3 times (37.5%) that either sex would enjoy the toy. Figure 3 below visually represents who the children felt would like the toys.
In addition the children were asked to think about why other children would like the toys they did, the children made 19 statements about whom else would like the toys, 10 by the boys and 9 by the girls. The children stated 11 reasons (57.9%) related to personal experiences, 6 by the boys (60%) and 5 by the girls (55.5%). The children stated 7 reasons (36.8%), which were gender stereotypical, 4 by the girls (44.45%) and 3 by the boys (30%). Finally, one boy stated a reason, which was egotistical (5.3% overall, 10% for boys). Figure 4 below visually represents the children's reasoning behind who would like the toys they like.
In order to collect information about parent's perceptions of the suitability of gendered toys for children, the questionnaire method was used. Full information on this method is included in the methodology section of this project (see 3.1).
The aim of the questionnaire was to ascertain parental perceptions of gendered toys and their suitability for their children. This information was needed, along with the data collected on children's toy preferences and the reasoning behind those preferences, in order to investigate whether parental beliefs and the toy choices and reasoning of children are interrelated.
The participants who completed this questionnaire were the parents of the children who took part in the collage activity. In total 8 parents, 4 mothers and 4 fathers were sent details of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was in an online format, and was created using the Google Docs application and was distributed electronically to the participating parents via email. The questionnaire comprised of multiple choice and text based questions. A sample of this questionnaire is included in the appendix of this project (See Appendix 6).
A link to the questionnaire was sent by email to the participants and they were given a month long period to complete the questionnaire, they were also sent an email reminder a week before the questionnaire would be taken offline. After the month long period 7 of the 8 parents contacted had responded, 4 mothers and 3 fathers, giving a total response rate of 90%. At this point the questionnaire was taken offline and the data was prepared for analysis.
The data was entered into a spreadsheet programme and percentages were calculated using a calculator. The questions and responses were coded and grouped into categories, in order to investigate parents perceptions on various different aspects related to gendered toys, these were; buying habits, toy colour, and happiness/ feelings regarding play with gendered toys and impact on child development. This enabled the study to obtain a broad view parents thoughts regarding gendered toys.
When looking at the toy buy habits of parents, 3 (43%) stated being highly influenced by the gender of the child they are buying for, the remaining 4 (57%) stated being somewhat influenced. When thinking about the purchase of gender typical, 7 parents (86%) made such purchases frequently with 1 parent (14%) occasionally making such a purchase. In the case of gender atypical toy purchases, 2 parents (29%) made such a purchase frequently, 2 parents (29%) occasionally made this type of purchase, 2 parents (29%) rarely brought atypical toys and 1 parent (13%) never brought their child gender atypical toys.
When thinking about toy colour and whether it influences their purchasing habits, 6 parents (86%) were highly influenced by colour and 1 parent (14%) was somewhat influenced. When asked about purchasing toys in gender typical colours, 3 parents (43%) frequently buy gender typically coloured toys while 4 parents (57%) occasionally buy such toys. In the case of gender atypically coloured toys, 1 parent (14%) occasionally brought gender atypically coloured toys, 3 parents (43%) rarely made this type of purchase and 3 parents (43%) never purchase toys in gender atypical colours. When asked what they would do if their child requested a toy, only available in a gender atypical colour 1 parent (14%) would buy it for a girl, 4 parents (57%) would buy it for either a boy or a girl and 2 parents (29%) would possibly buy the toy. Figure 5 below visually represents influences on parental toy purchases, while figure 6 shows incidences of gendered toy purchases.
The parents were asked about their feelings regarding their child playing with gendered toys, 4 parents (57%) were very happy for their child to play with gender typical toys while 3 parents (43%) were happy for their child to play with these toys. When thinking about play using gender atypical toys 3 parents (43%) were very happy for their child to play with such toys, while 3 parents (43%) were happy and 1 parent (14%) was unhappy for their child to play with gender atypical toys. The parents were also asked how appropriate they felt gender atypical toys are for children, 2 parents (29%) felt gender atypical toys are more appropriate for girls whilst 5 parents (71%) felt gender atypical toys were equally appropriate for either sex. All 7 parents reported actively encouraging their child to play with whatever toys the child enjoys. Figure 7 below visually represents parental happiness for their child to play with gendered toys.
Parents were also asked whether they believe gender atypical toys impact children's development, 1 parent (14%) felt such toys adversely impact the development of boys, 3 (43%) parents felt there was a positive impact on boys development and 3 (43%) parents felt there was no effect on boys development. In the case of girls development 3 parents (43%) felt such toy positively impact the development of girls while 4 parents (57%) felt there was no impact on a girl's development.
Finally, the parents were given a series of statements, related to what children should play with, and asked their level of agreement with these statements. The first statement was "Children should play with gender appropriate toys", 2 parents (29%) strongly disagreed with this statement, 3 parents (43%) disagreed, 1 parent (14%) agreed and 1 parent (14%) strongly agreed. The second statement was "Children should play with toys of their choice", 5 parents (72%) strongly agreed with this statement, while 2 parents (28%) agreed. The final statement was "Children should play with toys they enjoy", 6 parents (86%) strongly agreed with this statement while the remaining parent (14%) agreed.
Historical research into children's toy preference has been criticised by Down (1983) for being limited and constraining, consequently not truly representing children's views. Therefore, this research aimed to obtain children's opinions with freedom and autonomy, ensuring that the data collected was the children's own views, in order to assure the data gathered was a valid representation of the children's real life views. Furthermore, the semi-structured interviews were conducted alongside the collage activity, in order to give the children a concrete context to answer the questions. This aimed to ensure that the interview was conducted within a real life situation for the children, to yield valid answers from the children, within a relaxed and stimulating context.
Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that this research was conducted under the overarching research paradigm of the case study. Therefore, its findings represent only the phenomenon being research within the confines of the system it was conducted within and cannot be generalised or applied universally (Adelman et al, 1980; Creswell, 1994 cited in Cohen et al, 2011).
Through analysing the toy collages, a clear trend emerged, on the typed of toys that these boys and girls prefer. It would appear, from the data obtained, that generally speaking children are more attracted to toys typically considered to be most suitable for their own gender, corroborating the findings of previous research investigating children's toy preferences (Down, 1983; Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney et al, 2003; Cherney and London, 2006). Additionally, despite being given a choice of coloured paper to work with, all the children chose paper, which was in a gender typical colour. Furthermore, supporting the notion that children prefer items stereotypically considered appropriate for their gender.
Additionally, from this data, it would appear that the gender of the child somewhat affects their preference for gender stereotypical toys. The male participants did not choose any gender atypical toys, whereas the female participants chose a small percentage (9%) of gender atypical toys, suggesting that girls are more flexible in their toy choices. This notion of girls being more flexible in their toy choices supports research conducted by Wood et al (2002), whom found that girls were more flexible with the toys they play with compared to boys. However, the number of atypical toys selected was very low, in comparison to the total number of toys selected, it must also be noted that the all gender atypical selections were made by the same girl, with the other not making any gender atypical choices.
Overall 83% of the toys selected by the boys and 81% of the toys selected by the girls participating in this study were gender typical, based on this data boys appear to be slightly more likely to choose toys which are stereotypically considered most appropriate for their own sex. Nonetheless, generally speaking, considering the closeness of the percentages it is fair to argue that both boys and girls prefer gender typical toys, supporting the research outlined in the literature (Down, 1983; Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney et al, 2003; Cherney and London, 2006). However, this study presents data which demonstrates a significant difference in the preference of gender neutral toys between boys and girls, 17% of the toys chosen by the boys and 9% chosen by the girls were gender neutral toys. With these boys being almost twice as likely to select a gender neutral toy compared to the girls who participated, this finding contradicts that of Down (1983) who found that girls were more likely to select gender neutral toys.
Through analysing the data obtained via the semi-structured, informal interviews with the children, the reasoning children applying when making decisions about what toys they like has become apparent. The girls and boys who participated in this study gave an almost equal amount of reasons, with the girls giving 16 reasons and the boys giving 15 reasons. The most popular reasons given by the children differed depending on the sex of the child, with the girls mentioning the physical features of the toy most often and the boys mentioning how they could play with the toy most often. However, there was less variation between the sexes in some reasoning for liking toys. Both boys and girls equally liked toys because they were enjoyable to play with and also because the toy could be used in collaborative play, there was a small difference when mentioning collectability and the character featured on the toy. However, one of the girls mentioned liking a toy because she believed it to be inherently feminine, stating "it's girly" and "it is very girly and I love girly things" (See Appendix 5).
When asked to think about whom else would like the toys they liked the children made a total of 16 statements, 8 statements by each sex. The types of statements given by these children were very similar and the outcomes of the statements made were identical for the boys and the girls. Both sexes stated a child of their own sex would like the toy 4 times each, that children of either sex would like the toy they liked 3 times each with both sexes stating that a child of the opposite sex would like the toy they liked once each. These findings seem to support research hypothesising that children are egotistical in their reasoning about who else would like the toys they like, as these children most commonly felt children of their own sex would also like the toy they did (Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney, Harper and Winter, 2006). However, it its important here to state that only one child gave reason that could be considered truly egotistical, when asked whom else would enjoy playing with cars this boy stated "Only other boys like me, girls don't like cars" when he was further probed as to why this was the case he replied "Because cars a boys toys" (See Appendix 5). With this response this boy was coupling an egotistical reason, believing other boys would like something he did whilst girls would dislike it, with a gender stereotype, stating girls didn't like something with no real reason as to why. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that for most part, there are other factors influencing the reasoning of these children; that their reasoning is more than egotistical as suggested by the research outlined in the literature (Carter and Levy, 1988; Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney, Harper and Winter, 2006).
Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that these children also stated that children of either sex would enjoy the same toys as them and that these responses occurred almost on par with same sex responses. Therefore, for these children same sex responses are not overwhelmingly the norm when considering who else likes the toys they do. Nonetheless, the reasoning behind the responses tell us far more than the responses themselves, from these interviews it appears that children use their personal experience most often when reasoning about whom else would like the toys they do. This supports the research that takes the social learning theory standpoint of the acquisition of gender labels and gendered behaviour (Mischel, 1966; Fagot, 1978), as these children are drawing on experiences of things they have observed with their environment and use this to reason about the suitability of toys for other children.
The second most common influence on children's reasoning, from these interviews, is an awareness of gender stereotypical norms and labels. The children made some comments that suggested they were aware of the gender labels applied to certain toys and used this knowledge to determine whether or not they liked that toy and when considering who else would like that toy. One boys reaction to a section of electronic toys, which were all coloured pink in particular stood out, he rapidly skipped these toys stating "They are all pink, pink toys are girls toys" (See Appendix 5). Therefore, for this boy, despite these being toys that he would potentially enjoy, he dismissed them based solely on colour. This is concurrent with the finding of research investigating gender labelling and colours and how they affect children's reasoning about toys (Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995; Cherney and Dempsey, 2010). These studies discovered that gendered labelling and colours effect which toys children like as well as their reasoning about whom else would like that toy.
These finding together suggest that although gender stereotypes and labels are influential on children's reasoning about toys, their personal enjoyment is most important. Furthermore, when children are thinking about whom else likes the toys they do, personal experience is influential on their reasoning, these children are applying what they have previously observed in their environments when making these decisions, it is not merely egotistical thinking driving children's logic.
From analysing the questionnaire data it has become apparent that parents are clearly influenced by gender when making toy purchases; all 7 parents stated that gender does, to some degree, affect which toys they buy their child. Furthermore, this data also shows that toy colour influences parental purchases as all 7 parents stated that the toy colour effects whether to buy it or not they purchase it. The vast majority (86%) of these parents said that colour highly influences them. These findings demonstrate that modern parents are just as aware of what is stereotypically considered appropriate for children to play with, as the parents participating in research conducted over 30 years ago (Fagot, 1978). This finding seems to oppose more recent research which found parents do not use traditional gender labels to categorise toys which are traditionally viewed as being for a particular gender (Wood et al, 2002).
Furthermore, these parents purchase gender typical toys much more regularly than gender atypical toys, in addition the purchase of gender stereotypically coloured toys far outweighed that of toys in a gender atypical colour. This suggests that, in terms of their actions, what they actually purchase, these parents appear to believe gender typical toys to be more appropriate. This corroborates the research of Wood et al (2002), which whilst discovering a lack of parental conformity to traditional gender labelling of toys, discovered that how parents categorise toys does not reflect their actions in real life. The parents participating in the research of Wood et al most often played using toys typically labelled for their child's own gender, furthermore, they also considered gender typical toys the most desirable toys for their child.
However, over half (57%) of the parents, said they would buy their child a toy in a gender atypical colour if the child requested it and was unavailable in another colour. This finding contradicts research which suggests parents punish children for engaging with toys considered inappropriate for their gender (Fagot, 1978); it is fair to conclude that parents would not purchase a toy and then berate that child for using it. There was just one parent, a father, who seemed influenced by the sex of the child in answering this question, he stated would only make such a purchase for a daughter, suggesting that what he perceives as appropriate varies depending on the child's gender. Overall this data suggests that for the majority of these parents the child's enjoyment and wishes supersede any stereotypical views they may hold about children's toy and play. However, it cannot be argued that finding show parents are highly aware the gender stereotypes applied to toys and that generally conform these stereotypes when making toy purchases, in turn affecting what toys their child plays with.
This data clearly shows that these parents were all happy for their child to play with toys stereotypically viewed as appropriate for their own gender; equally the majority were also happy for their child to playing with toy stereotypically viewed as being most suited to the opposite sex. In fact, only 1 parent stated being unhappy for their child to play with a toy stereotypically viewed as being more appropriate for the opposite gender. Furthermore, the majority of these parents (71%) believe that gender atypical toys are appropriate for children of either gender. However, 2 parents believe that gender atypical toys are more appropriate for girls to use compared to boys, suggesting that for these parents the child's gender effects what they perceive as being appropriate. These findings show that despite these parents buying more gender stereotypical toys that in terms of play the vast majority are happy for their child to play with gender typical as well as gender atypical toys. Alongside the fact that all these parents actively encourage their child to play with what they find enjoyable, these finding once again suggest that the child's desires and enjoyment can overrule the parents gender stereotypical views.
This data shows that, for the most part, these parents do not believe that playing with gender atypical toys has a negative effect on a child's development, with one parent stating that such play would adversely affect the development of boys. The remaining parents were equally divided with half believing there was no impact on boy's development and half believing there would be a positive effect on boy's development. No parents believed gender atypical toy play would negatively impact girls development, once again suggesting that for a minority of parents a child's gender affects what is considered appropriate. This minority supports prior research, which has suggested what parents see as appropriate for children, varies depending on the sex of the child (Fagot, 1978; Roopnarine, 1986). Just over half the parents felt there was no impact on a girl's development while the remaining parents felt playing with gender atypical toys would have a positive effect on girl's development. These findings suggest that parents are somewhat divided on their opinion on whether gender atypical toys effect development, with the majority taking up the positions that there is either a positive impact or no impact on development. With only one parent believing the effect on development is adverse and even then only in the case of boys, once again suggesting that a minority of these parents see the appropriateness of gender atypical toys as being linked to the child's gender.
This data also shows that the majority of these parents do not believe children should be confined to what toys are stereotypically deemed appropriate. The most influential factors determining what these parents believe their child should play with are the child's interests and choice. This finding suggests that despite the influence of gender stereotyping of children's toys and its impact on buying habits, that for these parents their child's enjoyment of a toy is of paramount importance when considering what a child should play with.
Taking the data from the parental questionnaires, alongside that obtained through the children's collages it appears that there is a clear link between children's preferences and what parents buy. Children have a clear preference for gender typical toys and parents buy more gender typical toys. However, this data does not clearly identify the causal factor for the existence of this link; it does not identify whether the parent's purchases are influenced by the child's preference or whether the parent's stereotypical views influence the child's preferred toys.
In view of the fact that the majority of these parents (86%) were either very happy or happy for their child to play with gender atypical toys coupled with the fact that every parent actively encourages their child to play with toys they enjoy and strongly agrees or agrees that children should play with toys they enjoy and choose, it would appear that parents are happy for their children to play with toys that the child wants to play with. This would appear to contradict research, which found that parents engaged more with gender typical play, and that gender atypical play is punished (Fagot, 1978; Roopnarine, 1986). It appears that these parents are able to put their gender stereotypical views aside and are supporting their child in their toy choices. Furthermore, considering that during the interviews only 2 reasons out of 31 (6.45%) given by the children could be considered gender stereotypical, it would appear that despite these parents having clear awareness of the gender labels applied to toys that these stereotypical views have had a minimal impact on how children reason about their toy choices.
However, although the majority of these parents do not appear to punish gender atypical toy play, they do purchase their children predominantly gender typical toys. Furthermore, the majority of the toys selected (82%) by these children were gender typical, so despite the lack of gender stereotypical reasons given for preferring certain toys there is still a clear preference for gender typical toys for these children and their parents. Therefore, it could be argued that these parents are instilling their awareness of gender norms into their children through the toys they buy for them. These findings support the notion that parents influence the toy choices of their child, discovered in previous research (Weinraub et al, 1984), as parents are the primary source of toy provision for their children.
Neither of the boys interviewed made any reasoning that could be considered a gender stereotypical view when talking about why they liked certain toys. However, one of the boys did make stereotypical comments regarding the colour of some toys as the reason why he did not like them. The parents of this boy showed a clear preference for gender typical toys, his mother stated "I wouldn't go out and buy him a doll if he asked" and his father stated "I am not too keen on him playing with ʺgirlsʺ toys". These parents also responded that children should play with gender appropriate toys and that gender atypical toys are less appropriate for boys with the father responded that atypical toys adversely affect their development. Furthermore, his father also expressed views that gender atypical toys were appropriate for girls but not boys stating "I don't mind my daughter playing with guns and cars but I would find it weird if my son wanted to play with dolls" (See Appendix 7). The responses of this child and his parents appear to show a link between parental views and children's preferences supporting previous research in this field (Weinraub et al, 1984; Roopnarine, 1986). Furthermore, it seems to contradict claims that fathers are the primary influencers on children's toy choices (Weinraub et al, 1984) and supports the notion that both parents can equally influence their child's toy preferences (Roopnarine, 1986).
The conclusions this research can draw about children's toy preferences falls in line with other research conducted into children's toy preferences; that generally speaking children prefer toys that are stereotypically considered appropriate for their given gender. However, unlike previous research which postulates that children's reasoning about whom else likes the toys they do is egotistical, this research would argue that children utilise their personal experiences to judge whom else would enjoy the toys that they themselves do. Nevertheless, as with was found in other research this study also discovered that children are aware of and influenced by the gender labels applied to toys and that this also affects their reasoning when making choices about toys for both themselves and other children.
When considering parental perceptions of toys and the toys they purchase this research would argue that
Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.
Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.
Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.
Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.
