Short Reversed Roles Create Great Impacts

I decided to read another article in Sex Roles journal, Jennifer J. Pike and Nancy A. Jennings' "The Effects of Commercials on Children's Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use". It is another study that focuses on the effects of gendered toy commercials on children's toy preference and their gender labeling on toys.

For the study, 62 children in 1st and 2nd grade elementary school (28 boys and 34 girls) participated and were randomly assigned to be in three groups. One group would watch two toy commercials of boys playing with boy genderized toys (traditional condition), the second group would watch the same commercial but the boys would be replaced by girls (nontraditional condition), the third group would watch a non-toy commercial [SunnyD commercial] with both girls and boys (control condition). Pike and Jennings hypothesized that (1) the children in the nontraditional condition would more likely label the toys for both boys and girls and that (2) girls in the nontraditional condition would more likely respond differently saying that the target audience of the commercial were both boys and girls.

After the children watched the commercials, they were asked individually to categorized the toys from the commercials, two other similar toys, one toy truck, and one doll for either "boys", "girls", or "both boys and girls". The study proved that hypothesis (1) was supported with children in the nontraditional condition group were more likely to label the toys as both for boys and girls. The children in this group labeled one of the toys in the commercials 36.9% more to be for both genders.

On the other hand, Pike and Jennings' hypothesis (2) was not supported as they thought more girls than boys would label the toys as for both genders. It actually came out that more boys labeled the toys for both genders in the nontraditional group. In the nontraditional group 91% of the boys labeled one of the toys from the commercial for both genders while in the traditional group only 33% of the girls labeled the same toy for both genders.

The article concludes with the limitations of the study such as the editing in replacing the boys in the commercials with girls, and also time was limited for watching the commercials and interacting with the children afterwards. The short toy advertising commercials greatly impacts children and their views on gender that lead to their views on gender equality.

The Effects of Commercials on Children's Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use

Pike and Jennings' research article is a great source to place under my blog's topic since it specifically touches on the effects of genderized commercials and toys. I agree with the method they use to show the children the toy commercials and it helped to use a non-toy commercial as a control group to see children's perspectives without any recent influence. I also thought that both of the hypotheses, especially that girls would be more willingly to label toys for both genders, so I was surprised when it was actually boys that placed toys for both genders. It is a great finding since young boys are usually the ones who are discouraged to relate to girly toys so it is great to see a larger change in their gender toy role perspectives.

This article has made its valid research but this article is some years older than the first Sex Roles article I read, they may not wanted to spend as much time analyzing the limitations of the experiment. Such as I realized they could have mentioned with more participants they could have had more accurate results. I am sure there are other limitations such as the uneven ratio of boys and girls in the study.

Besides the lack of mentioning some limitations, why would the study focus on boy toy commercials instead of girl commercials and replace the girls with boys?

• As I mentioned how young boys are discouraged to relate with girly toys, this would most likely be why the study focused on boys' toy commercials. Girls have more of a flexibility to play with both boy and girl toys, whereas boys are influenced to only play with manly boy toys. Therefore as most girl toys are pink and more obvious to be girly, the boys in this study would have less of an impact to change their perspectives on girly toys being for both genders.

Why did they only present the children with one girl toy, the doll, because depending on the dolls appearance, wouldn't it be obvious for children to label it as a girl toy?

• It is weird that the 5 other toys were for boys and the one doll for girls. Other types of girl toys could have given different results. For instance Lego Friends, the Lego toy produced to appeal to girls, can have boys relate them to both genders since many Lego toys are for boys yet this specific one is for girls.
• The study probably just wanted to see if children knowing that dolls are for girls  would change their views and decide that boys can also play with dolls after seeing the nontraditional commercial.

All three of the articles I have posted are connected with different approaches on my topic of genderized toys. I would say my first website source is on changes made from realizing gender based toy commercials are negative, the second source is on what characteristics make toys genderized, and this source is on how these genderized toys effect children's gender identity perspectives. I enjoyed this article more because it explains that there is a positive impact on children and their socialization with toys if we change the way we advertise to the children. Thus by advertising to children in a gender neutral way, with both genders playing with any type of toy, it would benefit children's experience and learning with gender equality and sharing gender roles so there will not be anymore gender stereotypes.

References:
Pike, Jennifer J., and Nancy A. Jennings. "The Effects of Commercials on Children?s Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toy Use." Sex Roles 52.1-2 (2005): 83-91. Deepblue.lib.umich.edu. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Toy Characteristics Make Gender Identity

In Sex Roles journal, Carol J. Auster and Claire S. Mansbach wrote an article, “The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website," that focuses on the way the Disney Store website organizes its toys to appeal to it’s buyers, both parents and children. They have studied the website to observe how the toys are organized by color, type, and gender neutrality. Auster and Mansbach mainly focus on the research on characteristics of toys are gender labels.

Their researchers hypothesized that (1) toys with stereotypical gendered colors/toy types will be labeled as for the “appropriate” gender and that (2) toys labeled gender neutral will more likely resemble toys that are labeled “boys only”.  They focused on the Disney Store website’s toys only. The researchers also coded the toys by color and toy type.

So the codes (shade of color/toy type) were the independent variable and the Disney Store website labels “boys only” and “girls only” were the dependent variables. The researchers would then select 1 of the codes at a time and decide how many of those toys were labeled “boys only”, “girls only”, or “both boys and girls”. The outcomes supported their hypothesis (1) of stereotypical gendered colors/toy type will be labeled reflecting the “appropriate” gender that should play with the toy. [So the dark colors for boys, dolls for girls, etc…] Overall, out of 527 toys: 319 were “boys only”, 117 “girls only”, and 91 “both boys and girls” toys.

As the researchers categorized what colors and toy types were “boys only” and “girls only” they were able to conduct the study for the hypothesis (2). Based on color, most of the gender neutral toys were more like the “boys only” toys. Yet based on toy type, more “girls only” toys were also “both boys and girls” toy. The hypothesis (2) was partially correct since it had support from 1 code (color) of the toys but no support from the toy type code.

The article wraps up by stating its limitations: U.S. Disney Store, summer toys, and code toys by age. With these limitations future research can benefit from it. There can be studies done on other companies and websites. The articles conclusion suggested that there are few ways to change characteristics of toys to become gender neutral. The best way to improve a child’s influence of gender neutrality is to provide them with different types of toys (educational,musical instruments, artistic supplies) so they can accept gender equality. 

The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website  (This is a current Disney Store Website Image)

I think the article, “The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website” studied the Disney Store’s website well enough to obtain how genderized the toys they sell are. I agree with all of the hypothesis the researchers made because society influences children to like gender stereotypical toys and colors. Gender based toys make it difficult for children to learn gender equality and studies like this one can help toy companies create and advertise more gender neutral toys.

The research also seems well done as they provided limitations that can influence future studies to improve their findings. I do not strongly disagree with anything in this article or research. Auster and Mansbach mention how the characteristics of toys relate to advertisement and marketing. The research they have written provides details of genderized toy characteristics and they mention how companies can change them to supply gender neutral and equal toys.

How were the codes/characteristics assigned fairly to be either "boys only" or "girls only"?

• It was finalized by having 2 researchers assign codes, one code at a time (color then toy type), as toys for boys or girls. Then a third researcher categorize the ambiguous choices, choices where the the previous researchers picked opposite genders, by alternating from the first gender to the second one so it would be random. 

Why would they only focus on the Disney Store's toys if there are other brands that are just as popular like Hasbro or Fisher Price? 

• I think they focused on the Disney Store website and toys because Disney has its own popular television channel with kid shows of all ages. These shows are represented in a lot of their toys so children are being advertised to like their toys without even knowing. Therefore, its a popular toy brand to study.

Both of the sources I have covered approach the topic differently as my previous website source mentions that Sweden has noticed that toys are genderized so they want to become more gender neutral. While this academic article is a study to see how many toys are more genderized. Compared to the website source, this academic article is more focused on the gender influenced characteristics of toys that appeal to children and parent consumers. I think the academic article contributes to the genderized toy topic since it explains that the characteristics that were studied influence which toys are more popular to produce and sell. It is important to identify gender based characteristics of toys in order for us to understand what needs to be changed to encourage gender neutrality so children can understand and appreciate feminist equality.

 References:
Auster, Carol J., and Claire A. West. "[PDF] Springer – The Gender Marketing of Toys: An Analysis of Color and Type of Toy on the Disney Store Website, 2012 - West." West Welfare Society Territory. West-Info.eu, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.

Be Neutral Be Equal

            The Huffington Post article by Emma Mustich, Sweden ‘Trying To Banish Gender’ Through Toy Advertising And Language, presented how in 2012 Sweden began to denounce gender segregated toy advertisement. Leklust, a Swedish toy company, has made their catalogs to be against gender stereotypes with a boy dressed as Spiderman pushing a pink baby carriage and a girl riding a toy lawnmower. Their catalog became popular around social media and gained support for gender equality. Sweden’s model is not only for gender equality but mainly to raise children with gender-neutral views. These views also led them to introduce a neutral gendered pronoun “hen” instead of “han” (he) and “hon’ (she). The article concluded with the questioning if it is ethical to raise children as “gender-free” and with some audiences that disagree because children “don’t give a fig if the toy they want to play with is meant for a girl or a boy,” (Mustich).

Sweden’s view on toy advertising is uniquely productive since they see the corrupt views in other advertising with gender segregation and traditional gender roles. I agree with their model of gender free toys and self-identification. If children are not pressured by advertising to play with gender based toys, then they are able to choose whichever they like. Then without playing with gender based toys, children will not be socialized to stereotypical gender roles and can use the pronoun “hen”, or any other that is not gender specific, to comfortably describe themselves.

I support Sweden’s model and other views for gender equality or gender neutrality and so I disagree with those, such as Jacqueline Burt in the article, who do not care for the views. We need to realize that although there are children who enjoy any toy to play with, there are others who are influenced by genderized toys and advertising. Toy commercials, toy catalogs, and other methods of advertising influence children to play with the toys that are labeled for their gender. There will always be those kids who will say “Oh no, that toy is for girls/boys!” To prevent this type of negative gender segregation, we must begin to follow in Sweden’s model to show children it is not shameful to play with the opposite gender’s toys.

Sweden 'Trying To Banish Gender' Through Toy Advertising And Language

Anyway, why should anyone think it is shameful for a child to play with the opposite gender’s toy?

• The gap between genders is slowly closing with more gender equality rights than pass years. Since there are more woman in the work force and other male dominant roles, children should learn as they grow that opposite genders are the same in many aspects. Therefore, it would not be shameful to begin to play with different toys as a child.

Others could question why is there still a significant amount of pink in girl toys and blue in boy toys?

• Even in the Lekjust toy catalog most of the girl toys are all pink while the boy toys vary in dark colors. This specifically targets the toy company than the advertising itself; however, it also contributes to why the catalog separates these toys from the other non-pink and non-“girly” toys.
• I would assume it is because Sweden is slowly making this neutral gendered model and I respect that. I am sure over time pink toys will diminish because in reality there are no all pink ovens, vacuums, or castles, or anything really. 

Toys and toy advertising will hopefully become gender neutral in all aspects so children will begin to understand gender equality as they grow.

References:
Mustich, Emma. "Sweden 'Trying To Banish Gender' Through Toy Advertising And Language." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 31 Oct. 2014. 

Why are Children's Toys Important?

Children spend their time having fun and enjoying toys that are given to them without much thought behind it. It's all fun and games until toy you realize the toys they are playing with influence children to unknowingly portray traditional roles of males and females. Toys such as dolls for girls and trucks for boys limit their views on society by shaping it to seem that women are only girly beauticians, house workers, and mothers while men seem to be strict construction workers, tough bosses, and sometimes crazy vigilantes. How are children suppose to grow up and become independent with positive thoughts on equality for all if the toys they play with show them how to conform with the mainstream gender roles?

It is important to realize that the toys children play with can influence their views on gender roles and gender equality. And toys make this influence with their characteristics (color/toy type), advertising, and other features of the toys that children acknowledge when they are playing. So we should realize how we can change these toy characteristics and features so we can teach children that they do not need to follow traditional gender roles.

Children usually do not realize they are being influenced and they continue to grow up into the traditional beliefs of gender roles. As for me, I was able to play with both "girl toys" and "boy toys" so I never seemed to notice how gender roles were shown in toys. Now, I became interested in this topic because many toys show traditional gender roles to children and appeal to them. I feel that this approach lacks the right of equality since it restricts children from learning about the good differences in people. Such as how there are really good men hairstylists and professional women CEOs. Children should decide for themselves what toys they want so they can influence themselves and learn about equality at a young age do they grow up accepting the concept to make a change.