Gendered Toys And The Perceptions Children And Young People Essay

Gendered mulct dogs And The Perceptions Children And Young People analyzeThe focus of this inquiry was raiseualityed goldbricks and the perceptions children and their p arnts hold roughly these types of hornswoggles, it motored to investigate childrens motiveing active sex activityed role regularizes and looked to establish if a link exists among the perceptions of p arents and the wreak preferences of children. Gendered chat ups jakes be described as cosmos roleplays which are gener completelyy theory of as organism suitable for one sex over the other, for manikin wheel around mashs for males and dolls for females (Pleil and Williams, 2008 Francis, 2010). Throughout this look for the term sexual urge regular(prenominal) dawdles volition be used to describe toys which are conventionally considered to a greater extent or less suppress for the call down choosing them, the term sexual practice atypical is used to describe toys traditionally thought of as being suitable for a child of the opposite sexual practice to the sex of the child selecting them. This subject is in grouchy significant today, as it appears that the manufacturing and selling of toys is more than sexuality stereotyped now than previously with the vast volume of toy stores having aisles, or even entire floors dedicated to a limited grammatical sexual urge (Francis, 2010). wherefore, todays children are being exposed to sexual activity stereotyped toys to a greater degree than their counter begins would set out been in the past (Francis, 2010).Looking at explore which sought parents experiences of what toys their children preferred has try outd that teenaged children vary immensely when it comes to their selection of toys and that they deliver rattling clear opinions of what toys are well-nigh con contour line to to each sexual activity (Pleil and Williams, 2008). Furthermore, inquiry 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 stereotypic behaviour that forms during early childhood are an enkindle and important farthermoste, as it has been established that these gender patterns can influence a childs career wefts as adults (Cherney and Dempsey, 2010 Francis, 2010). Furthermore, toy select in itself is an important issue question 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 some(prenominal)(predicate) social and cognitive skills, with boys toys developing problem-solving skills whilst girlfriends toys develop nurturing and caring skills (Cherney and London, 2006 Francis, 2010). Therefore, the toys children play with, along with childrens gender stereotypical views of them are important and valid issues to seek 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 breeding postu late(a)lys that children learn gender norms and gendered behaviours by dint of observant their milieu and the people indoors it children observe the behaviours of people in their environment and replicate them. Gendered behaviours are reinforced through and through and 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 point of view the conceit of gender and the erudition of gendered behaviour is a socially constructed phenomenon. However, look for conducted on Verve and Rhesus monkeys has established that young primates display the similar gendered behaviours observed in their human counterparts (Alexander and Hines, 2002 Hassett, Siebert and Wallen 2008). This enquiry signifys that gender stereotypical toy preferences may be a reflection of the biological differences between males and females kinda 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. scorn 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 childrens social interactions, peculiarly with their parents, are influential on their perception and choice when it comes to toys.The overarching approach of this enquiry was a theme champaign, employing document analysis, questionnaire and wonder techniques of randomness stack awayion. The primeval investigate question for this reckon was How do chil dren and their parents perceive and close astir(predicate) gendered toys and what, if each, radio link exists between these perceptions in relation to childrens toy preferences. Four aims were identified and address by formulating four research questions, in effectuate to answer the central research question. These research questions wereWhat are childrens toy preferences and how, if at all, are these preferences co-ordinated 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?Chapter 2 Review of the LiteratureIntroductionThis review will catch issues relating to the perspectives held by children and parents on gendered toys. Firstly it will examine childrens toy preferences, exploring the gender dimorphic nature, which research has uncovered regarding childrens toy choices. Then the review will then explore the reasoning behind childrens toy choices, parental perspectives on the suitability of toys in relation to gender and finally the influence of parents on childrens perspective and choice.2.1 Childrens Toy Preferences and GenderIt has been put forward that the vast majority of experiments designed to assess childrens toy preferences were not true reflections of what children would choose in veritable life (Down, 1983). Down (1983) argues that prior experiments were too restrictive, only pass a very limited choice between small selections of typically male or female toys, which rarely takeered a gender achromatic choice. In his own research Down assessed elementary school senior childrens toy preferences by utilising childrens garners to Santa Claus, leaveing for an unrestricted, ecologically valid method of ascertaining childrens preferences in a realistic life, naturalistic way. Down pitch that many of the toys selected by the children were not traditionally gendered toys, rather they were toys which could be considered gender in assorted(p) girls were implant to be especially akinly to request gender unbiased toys whilst boys call for gender typical and gender neutral toys in equal measure. Nevertheless, Downs research likewise demonstrated that boys and girls both(prenominal) prefer gender typical toys over gender atypical toys, a notion which has been back up through the conclusions of continuation research (Carter and Levy, 1988 Martin, Eisenbud and Rose, 1995 Cherney et al, 2003).Recent research which, like Downs work offered a holistic cleverness into childrens toy preferences, was conducted by Cherney and London (2006). The child participants in this strike were asked to list their positron emission tomography toys, the participants were free to choose whatever toys they wished. Considerable differences were free-base in the favourite toys that were chosen based on the childs gender, replicating the previous mustering of Down both boys and girls preferred gender typical over gender atypical toys. They too discovered that whilst boys preferences became slightly more male as the child aged, that in contrast girls 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 woodwinds (2009) investigated whether infants display a preference for gender typical toys, this was determine utilise eye-tracking technology to measure the time the infants spent center on either a truck or a doll. It was lay out 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 o f a biological underpinning for childrens 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 out front it is commonly accepted that children name established gender identity and gender typical behaviour.However, it cannot be ignored that some of the research discussed higher up (Alexander and Hines, 2002 Hassett, Siebert and Wallen, 2008 and Alexander, Wilcox and Wood, 2009), is guilty of the very critical review 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 preference. Therefore, it could be argued that these studies do not demonstrate well-rounded stamp of childrens toy preferences and therefore the validity of these findings could be cal direct into question. Nevertheless, the findings of these stud ies, 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 taste into childrens toy preference and the difference between the preferences of girls and boys.2.2 Childrens Reasoning Regarding Toy Preference and suitablenessThrough previous research, several key factors have emerged that influence a childs reasoning about whom toys are suitable for. Several studies have found that childrens reasoning about who else would enjoy playing with a fact toy is often egoist. 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 mentation 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 designate as being for a certain gender, it is highly influential on childrens reasoning about who would enjoy that toy. They presented children with inviting, but foreign toys and asked them to rate the toys evoke to themselves and other children, the results were concurrent with the previous research of Carter and Levy (1988), the childrens reasoning was egocentric they concluded that what they liked other children of their gender would like. However, when they presented the children with another(prenominal) 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 conclude that other children of their own gender wouldnt like it either. Therefore, this research clearly demonstrates the condition of gender labels to influence childrens 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 childrens 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 girls 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 childrens 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 change magnitude trend seen in recent years for toy manufacturers to commonly trade the same toy, which is often a gender neutral toy much(prenominal) 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 childrens reasoning about toy preferences and suitability is influenced by a number of factors and is often egocentric. However the common thread running passim all these studies is that extracurricular influences, much(prenominal) a gender labels and colour greatly influences the toy s children like. The personal, egocentric reasoning employed by children in the absence of right(prenominal) influences, coupled with the change in childrens 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 run to conform to these gender norms when it comes to the toys they considered to be most appealing.2.3 Parental Perceptions of Gendered Toys and Their SuitabilityDuring the late 1970s an observational training was conducted, which investigated how parents acclaim and punish childrens behaviour, it was found that the types of behaviours parents praise or punish differ for boys and girls. The bring discovered that boys were punished when they play 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 par ents 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 childrens 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 to ys traditionally considered to be either male or female, were categorised as being gender neutral by the parents. The material 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 ne utral 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 stakes 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 childrens 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 to ys.2.4 Parental Influence on Childrens Toy Choices and ReasoningIt 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 childrens achievement 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 deve lop an awareness of their own gender before developing an accord 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 getting gendered behaviours (Weinraub et al, 1984). Therefore from a social learning perspective parents, as young childrens primary socialiser, have a massive potential to influence the introduction of gender behaviour in their child and therefore may influence the types of toys children choose to play with.Research conducted investigating young childrens gender identity, toy choices and family characteristics has found that parents do hold an influence over their childs toy choice (Weinraub et al, 1984). However, this influence was not universal for mothers and fathers. The study found that in the case of moth ers it is their occupation, not their sex-typed temperament traits, which affect childrens development of gender labelling and therefore their toy choices. On the other pass off, 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 adverse to previous research suggesting fathers as being the primary force backing 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.Chapter Three Methodology3.1 Research Me thodsThe 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 gain 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 suc h 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- curve therefore it is important contextualise case studies by employing strategies such as rich descriptions and inside information. 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 multipurpose 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 sign up 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 generalization 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 cognition obtained through a case study universally.This research employed trinity development collection methods within its case study research design, these were, questionnaires, documentary research and an interview. Three methods of info 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 firmly collect large quantities of data, and due to the standardised nature of the questionnaire the data collected is advantageously 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 peoples 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 solvents back can often be challenging (Willan, 2010 Robert-Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, the prep of a questionnaire can be difficult to get right requiring awake 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 take in the questions are formulated in a way to ensure the prerequisite 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 furth ermore, 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 childrens 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, turn over 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 think area of discussion (Willan, 2010 Robert-Holmes, 2011). Semi-structured i nterviews 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 childrens 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 well-heeled as possible, as feeling intimidated or un comfortable by the situation could potentially affect the success of the interview (Robert-Holmes, 2011). Furthermore, it was felt that edifice a good rapport with the children, through volunteering in their classroom before commencing the data collection w as 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 vestigial for successfully interviewing children (Folque, 2010).3.2 Ethical ConsiderationsBefore 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 certain 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).Chapter Four Results4.1 Analysing Childrens Toy CollagesIntroductionIn 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 detail of this method can be found in the methodology chapter of this research project (See 3.1).AimsThe aim of using document analysis was to ascertain the childrens toy preferences in a naturalistic and unbiased way. It allowed the chil dren 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.ProceduresIn total 31 families of family 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 entire family units. These families were chosen because of the commonality of their backgrounds, in order to minimise variables due to ethnicity, grow 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 wi th 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 childrens choices whilst ensuring the activity was safe. The activity was conducted in the childrens 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 l