Eine Studie hat untersucht, was Kinder sich vom Weihnachtsmann wünschen:
Sex-typed toy preferences were assessed in a nonrestrictive, ecologically valid manner. Letters to Santa Claus requesting Christmas presents, written by 154 elementary school-age children, were analyzed for number and sex-stereotypy of toys requested. Girls requested more toys than boys and children more often requested nonsex-typed (neutral) than sex-typed toys. Girls were especially likely to request neutral toys, while boys were equally likely to request neutral or masculine-typed toys. However, children preferred sex-appropriate to sex-inappropriate toys. The results support efforts to investigate both neutral and sex-typed toy preferences in natural contexts.
Quelle: Letters to santa claus: Elementary school-age children’s sex-typed toy preferences in a natural setting
Vieles hängt natürlich von der Einordnung des Spielzeuges ab. Interessant aber, dass die Kinder jedenfalls kein Spielzeug haben wollen, dass dem anderen Geschlecht zugeordnet ist. Das kann damit zusammenhängen, dass sie das aufgrund sozialer Umstände nicht als für sich passend empfinden, es kann aber eben auch daran liegen, dass sie dieses Spielzeug schlicht nicht interessiert, zumal zB CAH-Mädchen entsprechende Grenzen der sozialen Zuordnung ja anscheinend besser überwinden.
Zur Zuordnung habe ich auch noch eine interessante Studie gefunden:
Miller found that 41 of the 50 toys were rated as either boys‘ or girls‘ toys. Although most of the toys were rated as more appropriate for one gender or the other, there were also a few neutral toys (e.g., a rocking horse, a bank, an Etch-A-Sketch, Play-Doh, and some painting and drawing materials). The girls‘ toys included dolls, stuffed animals, and domestic items. The boys‘ toys included vehicles, balls, guns, and construction toys. Beyond these broad categories, Miller also found that the boys‘ and girls‘ toys had strikingly different characteristics. Boys‘ toys encouraged more fantasy play that was symbolic or removed from daily domestic life, whereas girls‘ toys encouraged fantasy play that was centered on domestic life. In other words, boys could use their toys to build something new or to imagine flying off to outer space, whereas girls could use theirs to pretend to iron clothes and wash dishes. Boys‘ toys were also rated higher on sociability (permitting play with others as opposed to solitary play), competitiveness, aggressiveness, and constructiveness. Girls‘ toys were rated higher on creativity, manipulability, nurturance, and attractiveness.
Wenn man davon ausgeht, dass Jungs auf ein prähistorisches Jäger und Kämpferleben vorbereitet werden sollen, dann leuchtet es ein, dass sie fiktive Szenarien durchspielen, in denen es auch um intrasexuelle Konkurrenz geht oder neue Gegenden zu erforschen und rumreiche Taten zu vollbringen und wenn sie ein höheres Interesse daran haben, zu konstruieren etc dann schlägt sich dies eben auch im Spielzeug nieder. Natürlich spielt man so etwas dann auch eher gegeneinander, weil man dann eben auch das trainieren soll. Aber auch manipulieren, versorgen und kreativ sein hat eben eine starke soziale Einbindung, auch hier kann einiges an Fantasie erforderlich sein, gerade wenn man es mit sich alleine spielt.
Weiter aus der Studie:
Study 1 demonstrated that toys are still seen as strongly gender stereotyped in very predictable ways. Dolls and toys focused on domestic activities were consistently seen as being for girls; weapons, vehicles, and action figures that represent aggression or violence were consistently seen as being for boys. However, there were many toys that were seen as generally appropriate for children of both genders.
In Study 2, we confirmed that girls‘ toys were more likely to be rated as focused on appearance and attractiveness, and were more likely to be seen as attractive themselves. Girls‘ toys were also rated as more nurturant and more likely to focus on the development of domestic skills. We did not confirm the hypotheses based on previous research that girls‘ toys would be higher on manipulability or creativity.
We confirmed that boys‘ toys were more likely to be rated as violent than were girls‘ toys. Also confirmed was the finding that boys‘ toys were more competitive. Although the previous research did not lead directly to these predictions, boys‘ toys were also rated as more sustaining of attention, more exciting, more fun, more dangerous or risky, and more in need of adult supervision than were girls‘ toys.
Young children spend many hours playing with toys, and these activities certainly contribute to their developmental progression. Toy play is also an integral part of the process of children’s gender development. This is so much the case that children’s preferences for and their knowledge about the gendered nature of toys have often been used as a measure of their gender development.
We can see that toys do provide gendered experiences. Girls are likely to have experiences with their toys that emphasize the development of nurturance and domestic skills. It is reasonable to assume that such experiences would also benefit boys, because in the modern world the care of children and the home is increasingly being done by people of both genders (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Wood & Eagly, 2002).
Girls are also likely to have experiences that emphasize the importance of attractiveness and appearance. This was found to be especially the case for strongly feminine toys, and in many ways it was the defining feature of this category. There has been particular concern about the impact of fashion dolls such as Barbie on girls‘ views of themselves. Clearly, these toys come with accessories and clothing that emphasize appearance and grooming, and girls do focus on the dolls‘ physical attractiveness as what they like about them (Markee, Pedersen, Murray, & Stacey, 1994). It is certainly arguable that this is a problematic aspect of strongly feminine toys.
Boys are more likely to have experiences with toys that are violent and aggressive and that involve competition, danger, risk, and excitement. Indeed, violence in particular was one of the defining features of strongly masculine toys. We suggest that this is possibly the most problematic aspect of boys‘ toys. Certainly there has been grave concern about violence in television and video games (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Bushman & Huesmann, 2001), both of which are more likely to be part of boys‘ experiences than girls.‘ Most of the concern about violence in boys‘ toys has dealt with guns (Watson & Peng, 1992), although there has been some analysis of the extent to which the promotion of action figures centers on aggression and violence (Klugman, 1999). To our knowledge, there has been no previous mention of the extent to which boys‘ toys are associated with danger, risk, and excitement.
Meiner Meinung nach verlaufen die Kausalitäten genau anders rum: Nicht das Spielzeug erzeugt das Interesse, das Interesse führt zur Wahl eines bestimmten Spielzeuges. Leider wird dieser Weg aus meiner Sicht in der soziologischen Forschung zu wenig überprüft.
Alles Evolution 