Children's preferences for Miriti toys: the influence of gender and dyad composition

Authors

  • Fernando Augusto Ramos Pontes Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Celina Maria Colino Magalhães Universidade Federal do Pará
  • William Lee Berdel Martin Universidade Federal do Pará

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19879

Keywords:

Play, Gender differences, Dyad composition, Miriti toys

Abstract

Data from different studies of sex differences in play indicate that boys and girls prefer different play activities and toys; in most studies commercial toys were used, or toys were not present in play activities. Considering that these preferences are interactionally contextualized, the aim of this study was to verify children's preferences for specific toys made out of Miriti (a palm native to wet areas - Maurita flexuosa L.), as well as the extent to which preferences varied as a function of gender and dyad composition. The study involved the participation of 116 children in the 4 to 10-year old age range attending a municipal school. In a special room, 52 Miriti toys were arranged on shelves. Children were grouped according to their choice into three dyads: two girls, two boys, and boy-girl. These dyads were taken to observational rooms where play sessions were filmed. The Ethology 2.3 Program was used to record the frequency and duration of play episodes with specific toys. No significant between-age differences in toy choice were observed. With reference to gender, boys tended to prefer three typical toys, whereas the girls chose only one. It was noted that sex differences tended to be most apparent among same-sex dyads, thus supporting findings from analyses taken at an individual level. Nevertheless, analysis of two-sex dyads revealed mixed preferential patterns, as sometimes the children played with specific toys preferred by boys, and sometimes they did not present significant differences compared to the girls group, being more similar to the female pattern.

Downloads

References

Millar S. The psychology of play. London. Cox Wyaman; 1968.

Pellegrini AD, Smith PK. Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child development 1998; 69 (3): 577-598.

Smith P K, Cowie H, Blades M. Understanding children’s development. London: Blackwell;1998.

Liss MB, Patterns of toy play: an analysis of sex differences. Sex Roles 1981; 7 (11): 1143-1150.

DiPietro JA. Rough and tumble play: a function of gender. Developmental Psychology 1981; 17(1): 50-58.

Beraldo KEA. Gênero de brincadeira na percepção de crianças de 5 a 10 anos [dissertação]. São Paulo (SP): Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de São Paulo; 1993.

Carvalho AMA, Smith, PK, Hunter T, Costabile A. Playground activities for boys and girls: some developmental and cultural trends in children’s perceptions of gender differences. Play and Culture 1990;3(4):343-347.

Maccoby EE, Jacklin CN. Gender segregation in childhood. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 1987; 20:239-87.

Maccoby EE. Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology 1988; 24(6): 755-65.

Martin CL, Fabes RA. The stability and consequences of young children’s same-sexpeer interactions. Developmental Psychology. 2001; 37 (3): 431-46.

Archer J. Childhood gender roles: Social context and organization. In : Mc. Gurk H. Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives. Hillsdale. (USA): Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992. p. 31-61.

Beal CR, Boys and girls: The development of gender roles. New York: Mc Graw Hill; 1994.

Morais MLS. Conflitos e(m) brincadeiras infantis: Diferenças culturais e de gênero.[tese]. São Paulo (SP): Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de São Paulo; 2004.

Sprafkin C, Serbin LA, Denier C, Connor JM.Sex-differentiated play: cognitive consequences and early interventions. In: Liss MB. Social and cognitive skills: sex roles and children’s play. New York : Academic Press; 1983. p. 167-192.

Fabes RA, Martin CL, Hanish LD. Young children’s play qualities in same, other, and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development. 2003; 3(74):921-32.

Serbin LA, Poulin-Dubois D, Colburne KA, Sen MG, Eichstedt JA. Gender stereotyping in infancy: visual preferences for and know ledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second yearof life. International Journal of Behavioral Development 2001; 25(1):7-15.

Silva LIC, Pontes FAR, Silva SDB, Magalhães CMC, Bichara IDB. Diferenças de gêneros nos grupos de brincadeira na rua: a hipótese de aproximação unilateral. Psicologia Reflexão Critica 2006; 19(1):114-121.

Morais LC. Aprendendo com o brinquedo popular na arte com o miriti: um estudo do brinquedo popular, através de seus elementos fundamentais aplicados na educação. Belém: Secretaria do Estado da Cultura (SECULT) e Fundação Cultural do Pará Tancredo Neves (FCPTN); 1989.

Nassar E. Brinquedos populares: exposição. Cadernos de Cultura - SEMEC 1984; 2.

Ottoni EB. EthoLog 2.2 - a tool for the transcription and timing of behavior observation sessions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, Computers, 2000; 32(3):446-449.

Downloads

Published

2008-08-01

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 2 (2008)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis