Jump to content


Toggle shoutbox Squawkbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

Please don't post Youtube videos in the chat box. The forums software auto embeds them. 

@  Sabrblade : (21 June 2021 - 08:58 PM)

Daddy!

@  Kalidor : (21 June 2021 - 04:50 PM)

Not just any girl - your mom!

@  Steevy Maximus : (20 June 2021 - 08:19 AM)

Happy Knocked-Up-A-Girl Day!

@  Bass X0 : (20 June 2021 - 02:13 AM)

Happy father's day!

@  Hot Rod Mustang : (19 June 2021 - 07:45 PM)

what up sluts?

@  TheMightyMol... : (19 June 2021 - 07:20 PM)

Only 6? Filthy casual.

@  wonko the sane? : (19 June 2021 - 04:26 PM)

Multiplaying as in "playing with other people" or multiplaying as in "6 WoW accounts running at the same time"?

@  Steevy Maximus : (19 June 2021 - 01:45 PM)

Oh no! Darkeklaw is multiplaying! (See birthday box)

@  tigerhawk : (19 June 2021 - 11:54 AM)

In my Marvel comic canon the second wave of special teams were handpicked active robots whose experience would theoretically make more stable combiners, the Combaticons came from Cybertron, the Protectobots were imprinted from crystals explaining both Onslauhghts ancestry and First Aid's experience.

@  Dekafox : (18 June 2021 - 05:24 PM)

Spotlight: Lioconvoy?

@  Bass X0 : (18 June 2021 - 04:15 PM)

How long until IDW puts out an Optimus Pride Month comic?

@  Cyoti : (18 June 2021 - 03:32 PM)

Even with B5, it didn't follow its original 5-year plan. Summaries from the supplementary materials for the scriptbooks demonstrates that was originally planned was very different from the actual product. Sinclair's actor's departure seemingly changed the show to the point that the stuff with the Vorlons/Shadows, the Minbari and the ending were all changed. Mapping out a show years in advance is difficult because of changing bts stuff like writers/actors leaving the show or suddenly having to retool because of ratings/execs. No plan survives intact especially in a chaotic environment of television production.

@  Rycochet : (18 June 2021 - 11:27 AM)

To be like Babylon 5, you need to cram a 2 season story arc into one because you fear being cancelled, then get further seasons you have no more material for. You also need a spinoff which the network heads don't want and do everything in their power to kill it while it's on air.

@  wonko the sane? : (18 June 2021 - 10:33 AM)

The required effort is probably why we don't have babylon 6; TNG.

@  Dekafox : (18 June 2021 - 10:23 AM)

Everyone wants to be like Babylon 5 but no one wants to put in the effort

@  Nevermore : (18 June 2021 - 09:36 AM)

And then, after five years of hosting their own official podcast where they would answer fan questions and always encouraged their audience to pay attention to the mysteries, after the show had ended, they claimed the show was never really about the mysteries, it was all about the characters.

@  Nevermore : (18 June 2021 - 09:34 AM)

What really bugs me with "Lost" is that the producers had willfully negotiated a set end date with the network halfway through season 3 (the show ended with season 6, as planned) specifically so they could plan out the plot for the remainder of the show. Then... the plot wasn't resolved properly.

@  tigerhawk : (18 June 2021 - 04:17 AM)

By then I had lost interest in arc TV shows, I followed a few and got the impression they were just making them up as they went along. Seemed to be a trend starting with new Galactica and Lost though in actuality began with The X Files and has become a trope called 'The Chris Carter Effect'.

@  Nevermore : (18 June 2021 - 02:12 AM)

I think it was season 3 part 1 specifically, since they had two separate plot "arcs" for season 3.

@  Nevermore : (18 June 2021 - 02:11 AM)

They threw everything in there, with no clear story structure, no clear stakes, and characters flip-flopping wherever the episode's writer needed them to go for their half-baked plot.

@  Nevermore : (18 June 2021 - 02:10 AM)

Season 3 was the worst, with a terrible meandering random events plot.

@  tigerhawk : (17 June 2021 - 11:59 PM)

'save the cheerleader' then in season 3 he tears her skull open, scans her power and she simply heals. They didn't think any of it through.

@  Shockwave 75 : (17 June 2021 - 07:04 PM)

Well, you know Hollywood; if something's popular, run it into the ground!

@  Cybersnark : (17 June 2021 - 04:40 PM)

And then there was the Writers' Strike, which isn't the show's fault.

@  Cybersnark : (17 June 2021 - 04:40 PM)

Yeah, Sylar should've been, if not killed off, at least left to rest.

@  Nevermore : (17 June 2021 - 03:43 PM)

It never truly recovered from that.

@  Nevermore : (17 June 2021 - 03:43 PM)

Season 1 was good until the finale.

@  Paladin : (17 June 2021 - 09:37 AM)

because it sucked.

@  tigerhawk : (17 June 2021 - 08:58 AM)

Heroes was cancelled twice.

@  Nevermore : (17 June 2021 - 06:33 AM)

The song's official name is "Holding Out for a Hero".

@  PlutoniumBoss : (17 June 2021 - 12:54 AM)

That's a long time to wait for a sandwich.

@  Maruten : (16 June 2021 - 07:13 PM)

Lucky there's a hero arriving in July.

@  Steevy Maximus : (16 June 2021 - 05:38 PM)

I think I've heard "I Need a Hero" more times this past week than I have in the past several years.

@  tigerhawk : (16 June 2021 - 12:41 PM)

Thanks to Earthrise I can recreate the end of Return of Optimus Prime part 1.

@  wonko the sane? : (16 June 2021 - 11:19 AM)

I wish they would do something like that here: but then it would become obvious in which provinces you're getting gouged.

@  Nevermore : (16 June 2021 - 10:42 AM)

Here in Germany, the price you see is the price you pay, tax included.

@  Nevermore : (16 June 2021 - 10:42 AM)

I always find it weaird hearing that stores in the US don't initially already taxes in their prices.

@  Nevermore : (16 June 2021 - 04:33 AM)

You know what's kewl? Poor literacy.

@  wonko the sane? : (15 June 2021 - 04:31 PM)

Awesome, thanks for the heads up.

@  CORVUS : (15 June 2021 - 04:12 PM)

Kewl. Thanks!

@  Kalidor : (15 June 2021 - 02:08 PM)

Hey everybody! I wanted to announce that Sarahthecutevixen is our newest addition to the Allspark staff. She's primarily looking over discord stuff, but I wanted to make sure she got a welcome over here as well.

@  NovaSaber : (14 June 2021 - 11:07 AM)

Turn-Bass RPG

@  Sabrblade : (14 June 2021 - 10:21 AM)

Do not X0 quietly into the night.

@  ▲ndrusi : (14 June 2021 - 10:13 AM)

All your Bass are--

@  Donocropolis : (14 June 2021 - 05:56 AM)

*Bass X0 not available in Alaska or Hawaii.

@  Steevy Maximus : (13 June 2021 - 07:36 PM)

Get your own Big Mouth BassX0 for the low price of $19.95 (plusshippingandhandling)

@  repowers : (13 June 2021 - 12:45 PM)

Mr. Speaker, we are for the Bass X0.

@  Nevermore : (13 June 2021 - 06:04 AM)

It's all about that Bass XD.

@  tigerhawk : (13 June 2021 - 02:16 AM)

Will altering the moons orbit in any way help.

@  PlutoniumBoss : (13 June 2021 - 01:51 AM)

Now that you have seen this Bass XO, you must send it to five other Bass XOs or BassXO will come to you in a week and then you too will be BassXO.


Photo
- - - - -

Interesting New Study On Babies' Preferences Regarding 'Masculine' Toys

Gender Gender differences Masculinity Child Psychology Child Development

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 Cat

Cat
  • Retired Staff
  • 11612 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:49 PM

Frankly, I'm not quite sure how much faith I put in their method, but I still think it's worth a read.

 

Basically, they tracked the eye movements and timing of babies, and concluded that baby boys are more interested in dolls than traditional boys toys like cars. They used babies aged between 3 1/2 to 5 month olds.

 

There's some interesting commentary on what it could mean, but again, I'm not quite certain of their method.

 

http://www.smh.com.a...0104-30aq0.html

 

===================================================================

The preference many boys have for ''masculine'' toys such as cars only develops later in life, according to a new study that tracked the eye movements of babies.

The research found boys aged up to five months were more attracted to dolls than they were to toy cars and mechanical objects, suggesting children are not born with gendered preferences - instead, these develop as a child matures.

Paola Escudero, of the University of Western Sydney, conducted the research in collaboration with the University of California.

The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, used eye-tracking technology on children aged 3½ months to five months to determine their preferred object or toy.

Advertisement

Images of two different objects were displayed on a screen. The length of time and frequency of the child's gaze was measured to ascertain a preference.

''The preferences we see [at five months] have nothing to do with biology,'' she said. ''Social pressures, parents, other people guide children to like things that are specific to their sex.''

There were several reasons for gender differences developing later in life, Dr Escudero said.

Society may teach children what items they should prefer, depending on their gender, as they mature.

Then there is the possible effect of cognitive development, in which changes in the brain create a preference for some things over others.

Last, hormonal changes could direct children's choices as they mature. ''Testosterone makes [boys] engage in more strong playing and with items that allow them to explore or exploit that way of playing, whereas oestrogen leads to interaction with the social environment,'' she said.

Dr Escudero said further research was needed to determine which of these factors were instrumental in the development of a child's preferences.

Childcare professionals say gendered choices are definitely learnt - and most young boys enjoy playing with dolls.

Aria Adams-Wilcox, of Belrose Children's Centre in Warringah, said boys and girls played social games around the age of two and all played different gendered roles.

''There was a boy who would only take on the role as mother, so he could be caring and help the 'babies' [other children or dolls] go to sleep,'' Ms Adams-Wilcox said.

She said the children started to develop greater awareness by age 3½, and by four years old many boys had decided ''only girls play with dolls''.

''I think they start to understand the difference between genders because of siblings, elder family members, parents, and socially they're told the differences and, in that way, the different roles,'' Ms Adams-Wilcox said.

Anna Tydd said her sons, Archie and Will Lambert, enjoy social games. ''Just the other morning they had their bears and bunnies and were playing mums and dads.''

While she encourages a balanced way of playing by buying construction toys such as Lego, she said she would never discourage her boys' preferences.

Ms Tydd said she has friends who will encourage more masculine toys and dress ups if their boys show more femininity, to prevent bullying.

"It definitely depends on the parents," she said.

=============================================================================================================



#2 NotVeryKnightly

NotVeryKnightly
  • Staff
  • 25044 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:00 PM

Are cars and dolls really a fair comparison? Maybe babies just prefer humanoid shapes to vehicles? Couldn't they have compared with something like "girly" humanoid toys and "masculine" ones?



#3 Copper Bezel

Copper Bezel

    Thighs should be seductive.

  • Supporter
  • 52873 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:11 PM

That would be preferable. The findings (as seems common) are unsurprising and insignificant. Even nonhuman primates show these kinds of preferences at a young age, and the fact that a five-month-old has no frame of reference for a representation of a car but much for a representation of a human is an absurdly important factor to just overlook.


Shouldn't gravity be doing something?
 
Of course there's a figure of Rodimus as some kind of animal girl. Why would I be surprised by this?

 


#4 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Banned
  • 20567 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 03:43 PM

Are cars and dolls really a fair comparison? Maybe babies just prefer humanoid shapes to vehicles? Couldn't they have compared with something like "girly" humanoid toys and "masculine" ones?

My recommendation:

 

*12-inch realistic feminine fashion doll, such as Barbie

 

*12-inch non-realistic feminine fashion doll, such as Monster High

 

*12-inch realistic masculine figure, such as a soldier or a clearly human superhero (like Cpt. America)

 

*12-inch non-realistic masculine figure, such as Iron Man or Optimus Prime

 

Restricting the figures to the same size (give or take) will help rule out bias from children simply seeking the bigger toy. By having distinctly masculine and feminine figures, we can observe if the child in question favors one gender over the other. And by having both realistic-looking and non-realistic figures, we can determine if there is a possible bias away from shapes or appearances that are not entirely familiar.

 

If the children being tested show a uniform bias towards the feminine figures, regardless of realistic or non-realistic, then the hypothesis is confirmed. But if the children show a uniform bias towards the masculine figures or a bias towards the figures of their own gender, then the hypothesis is rejected.



#5 Detour

Detour

    Graham Linehan is a sack of sh

  • Supporter
  • 20831 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:23 PM

I

but


what


They didn't even actually put toys in front of them! They just showed them images! Who are these people?
You show them images and they're going to go with what's more recognizable! At that age, it's going to be a human shape! Fellow humans are the first things infants recognize! I mean if you put toys in front of them and just let em have a go at it, you might get something... but these are images, what sort of infant is going to favor eyeing a wrench or a porsche over something ressembling a fellow human???

I...

Just....


ARGH.


You're far too young to be this bitter and angry at the world....

I'm reading that with Roy's voice. Heck, I read everything you post in a laconic Irish accent.

 


#6 Jenny

Jenny
  • Citizen
  • 23047 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:26 PM

I am pretty sure when I was baby, I didn't care what kind of toys I had, as long as I got to put them in my mouth.



#7 StarSaber

StarSaber
  • Validating
  • 2882 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:02 PM

Although variety would go a long way towards DISproving their hypothesis, even if the test subjects unanimously picked the girl dolls over boy dolls/action figures, it wouldn't be conclusive evidence. The babies might just have picked the item most resembling their mothers whom they'd be more bonded to than their fathers at that age.

-SS

#8 Detour

Detour

    Graham Linehan is a sack of sh

  • Supporter
  • 20831 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:09 PM

Yeah, that was one of the points I was trying to get at.

But I mean their "study" didn't even seem to involve action figures on the "masculine" side. It was like, "dolls" on the feminine side and "cars and tools" on the masculine side.

Even then doll is vague. Doll like Barbie, or doll like a baby doll that really burps and drools? Either or, it's still a more recognizable visual to an infant than "cars and tools".


You're far too young to be this bitter and angry at the world....

I'm reading that with Roy's voice. Heck, I read everything you post in a laconic Irish accent.

 


#9 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Banned
  • 20567 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 06:55 PM

Although variety would go a long way towards DISproving their hypothesis, even if the test subjects unanimously picked the girl dolls over boy dolls/action figures, it wouldn't be conclusive evidence. The babies might just have picked the item most resembling their mothers whom they'd be more bonded to than their fathers at that age.

-SS

Honest researchers don't just do one study and call it a day.

 

Once they find that X causes Y, they'll try to figure out why X causes Y.

 

So if the kids in question do all favor one over the other, it then becomes a matter of "Why do they do this?".



#10 Varnon

Varnon

    Counterpoint is a man's soul.

  • Citizen
  • 10207 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 08:09 PM

I think the summary on SMH misinterprets the research, although I can't be certain as the summary on the website doesn't even provide a proper citation for the article. Searching the journal for the author Paola Escudero only returns one result (from 2013) so I am assuming that is the research discussed. But still, pretty silly not to provide enough information to find the actual research. Many researchers publish multiple articles in the same journal within a few years.

 

I believe the summary at SMH is referring to this article:

 

Escudero, P., Robbins, R.A. & Johnson, S.P. (2013). Sex-related preferences for real and doll faces versus real and toy objects in young infants and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 367-379

 

The abstract of the article provides a different story than SMH:

 

 

Findings of previous studies demonstrate sex-related preferences for toys in 6-month-old infants; boys prefer nonsocial or mechanical toys such as cars, whereas girls prefer social toys such as dolls. Here, we explored the innate versus learned nature of this sex- related preferences using multiple pictures of doll and real faces (of men and women) as well as pictures of toy and real objects (cars and stoves). In total, 48 4- and 5-month-old infants (24 girls and 24 boys) and 48 young adults (24 women and 24 men) saw six trials of all relevant pairs of faces and objects, with each trial containing a different exemplar of a stimulus type. The infant results showed no sex-related preferences; infants preferred faces of men and women regardless of whether they were real or doll faces. Similarly, adults did not show sex-related preferences for social versus nonsocial stimuli, but unlike infants they preferred faces of the opposite sex over objects. These results challenge claims of an innate basis for sex-related preferences for toy real stimuli and suggest that sex-related preferences result from maturational and social development that continues into adulthood. 

 

 

The point of the studies seems to be that the sex preferences found in other research may not be related to boys preferring masculine items and girls preferring feminine items. Instead it may be that infants prefer social items to non-social items. There are a few varieties of this experiment in the paper. Honestly I only skimmed the paper, but it seems to be making a much different point than what the article on SMH suggests. Some of the other individuals quoted do not appear to be related to this study at all.

 

As far as psychology goes, I like the infant research much more than adult research. Since infants can't talk, the researchers actually have to pay attention to their behavior instead of having them fill out a survey. It makes the methods much more in line with research on other species' behavior. Eye gaze is a popular measurement for infants. With eye tracking software, preference as a measure of looking time is much easier to quantify than preferences if the infants were actually handling objects. Also at some ages the infants are not really coordinated enough to interact with objects, but they will look at them. Although I think the eye gaze measures are interesting, sometimes the researchers interpret too much in them. Longer looking times can be said to indicate interest, surprise, confusion or a variety of things, but really all we know is that they look longer for some reason.

 

Overall, I think the actual research makes a good point. Some gender differences we previously assumed were innate likely occur AFTER children are old enough to learn from social contexts. 


What signature?

#11 Cat

Cat
  • Retired Staff
  • 11612 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:50 AM

This is why I shouldn't post articles at almost 5am.

 

Ugh.

 

Rereading the article now, it's much worse than I thought.

 

 

Sorry!



#12 Varnon

Varnon

    Counterpoint is a man's soul.

  • Citizen
  • 10207 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:41 PM

No need to apologize Cat! The article and discussion here are interesting. It is just unfortunate that journalism often misrepresents science as they did here.


What signature?

#13 Copper Bezel

Copper Bezel

    Thighs should be seductive.

  • Supporter
  • 52873 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:43 AM

Indeed. It's unfortunate that journalism doesn't come with peer review, but in consequence, that's what news forums are for.


Edited by Copper Bezel, 07 January 2014 - 03:44 AM.

Shouldn't gravity be doing something?
 
Of course there's a figure of Rodimus as some kind of animal girl. Why would I be surprised by this?

 


#14 RYNO

RYNO

    Ready to Roll Out

  • Citizen
  • 5601 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:21 AM

As someone who has raised multiple children in the past few years (over 11+) from age 12-Newborn, I can say that all the ypung children Newborn-2 perfer Softer toys like dolls.

 

Hard Toys start taking real precedence when Teething Starts.

 

Around 2-3 when our Boys started to play and pretend is where the change happens they start being exposed, seeing, and playing superhero.

 

To try and evaluate between Newborn and 5 months is folly, lol. The brain hasn't developed to that stage yet, lol.

 

My boys really didn't start actively playing with Superhero figs till they were 3ish.... As for dressing up with a 9 year old daughter playing dress-up the boys end up looking like Princesses, but believe they are Hulk and Ironman, because they are "dressed-up" lol

 

Kids are kids.... By them hundreds of dollars worth of toys, and you have expensive paperweights, give them the shipping box and they are happy and content like they found ambroise.... LOL



#15 Spark

Spark
  • Citizen
  • 39394 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:19 AM

Are cars and dolls really a fair comparison? Maybe babies just prefer humanoid shapes to vehicles? Couldn't they have compared with something like "girly" humanoid toys and "masculine" ones?

This seems like a way more plausible explanation to me.  Babies recognize other humans immediately, but they won't know what in the hell a car is for some time.


Fall of Cybertron will blow your mind. That is all.