|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 12, 2015 5:45:36 GMT
This is based on Loki's idea elsewhere on the forum. For the toys, I'm thinking a mix of stuffed animals and wooden playthings. Stuffed Animals: The crew could use a series of gender-neutral patterns. The only difference between the "boy" and "girl" versions would be the color of the material used to make them. For example, a "boy" penguin could be varying shades of blue, while a "girl" penguin could be varying shades of pink (would it foul the experiment to give them both yellow beaks and feet?). If the Mythbusters don't feel up to developing the patterns and assembling the stuffed animals themselves, then they could turn this into a "junior Mythbusters" bit by enlisting the home economic class at one or more local high schools to assist them in the endeavor. Wooden Toys:This is where the rubber meets the road. When most people think of wooden toys, they think of things like Lincoln Logs (et al), building blocks, and rocking horses. But if you know where to look (such as arts & crafts stores), you can actually get mass-produced unpainted shaped wooden toys. For example, a Google search on my part yielded this listing for unpainted wooden train cars. I've also seen helicopters, cars, construction vehicles, and military vehicles. Failing this, as with the stuffed animals the Mythbusters could hypothetically enlist a high school shop class or two in order to make large quantities of identical wooden toys. Either way, the resulting toys will be painted up, half in "feminine" colors and half in "masculine" colors. For example, you could have a pink tank sitting next to a blue tank. With this one, kids have an incentive to pick toys that are in the "wrong" colors because the toys might be something of a type that they would play with normally, such as a boy going for a pink tank or a girl going for a blue sailboat. I believe that between the stuffed animals and the wooden toys, the team should have more than enough to test how young children make decisions and if they prefer any colors over the other. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 12, 2015 5:49:29 GMT
Now, what about the older children and adults? Wooden model kits.As you can see from the link, you've got everything from penguins to Patriot Missile Launchers. With these, the team can either paint each sheet from each set a solid color before assembling, or the team can dole out the unassembled kits based on which ones the test subjects select. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 12, 2015 6:03:49 GMT
The problem would be that unless,you get a bunch of newborns into a room and look at how they react to blue or pink coloured items the children have already probably had several months or years of parents, family, friends and media indoctrinating them into the societal colour preferences for boys and girls.
Or you could see if any cultures around the world have different colour preferences to the ones that many of us expect to be the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 12, 2015 7:57:05 GMT
Go back a couple of years. Victorian times. They changed the Pink and Blue... Before that, Pink was for boys, Blue was for girls. Or sort of... Site.... www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?no-istSmithsonisn -dot-com..... must be fact checked then?... Well, its kind of is, because in what I know, its right. Its only MODERN day culture that is so fascinated with the correctness of child gender based worries. Many years ago, you wore what was to hand. The more affluent could afford to dress the kids different, but the rest of us just had hand-me-downs. An old joke original by Mike Harding... "We all wore hand-me-downs, and I had two older sisters?... One day I wore the same dress to school as the teacher, I dont know who was more embarrassed, me or him...." Yes run the test, but, I have a more interesting plan of attack. Use the pink and blue, as pale baby colours. Then go to testing again with those pale colours, but throw in the strong primary colours, Red Yellow Green and Blue, and watch as the kids aim for the stronger colours first... Cant remember who did the primary research on this, but, young kids are attracted to strong primary colours. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 12, 2015 8:16:05 GMT
The original discussion wasn't on whether girls like pink toys and boys like blue toys, but on whether having pink/blue color schemes in different parts of a toy store will attract/deter a particular gender, even if they don't yet know what toys are in a particular section.
Test proposal:
Set up a toy store scenario with a powder blue section and a bright pink section (typical baby boy/girl colors). The colors should be visible as you approach the sections, but the toys themselves should be hidden behind walls and the two sections should also be separated by a wall, so that once a kid has made a choise, they can't see what's in the other section.
Will boys automatically go for the blue section of the store and girls automatically go for the pink section of the store, even though they have yet to see what toys are actually in each section?
For the first test, give the kids what we as adults expect them to expect. Typical boys' toys in the blue section and typical girls' toys in the pink section.
What happens? Ask the kids why afterwards.
Do a second test. This time, the sections are identical. Equal amounts of boy/girl toys. Watch the reaction and talk to the kids afterwards about what they expected vs. what they got.
Do a third test. This time the sections are completely flipped. Girls' toys in the blue section and boys' toys in the pink section. Part of the wall should be removed for this test, allowing the kids to see into the other section after they've made their choise. Note the kids' reactions and particularly if there seems to be any reluctance to going into the different colored section to get to the toys they prefer. Also, note if they go into the other section to get a toy and then go back, or if they just play with it where they are. Talk to the kids afterwards about what they expected vs. what they got. (A big surprise here would be if the kids stay in the gender-typical colored room and just plays with what's there, even though they can see toys in the other section that are more gender-typical for them - boys playing with dolls and girls playing with action figures.)
To definitively see what importance the color schemes vs. the actual toys themselves hold for the children, you could do a fourth test. This time, the wall separating the two colored sections is removed completely to make an open space, but the original blue/pink division of the "store" is retained. Everything is placed on the shelves in a logical order by function, instead of by typical gender stereotypes. Stuffed animals have their own section. Creative things like coloring books, crayons, beads, make your own jewelery sets and modelling kits have their own section. Building blocks of various types have their own section and so on, but the functional sets are all placed randomly in the "store", so R/C stuff might be in the pink section while action figures are in the blue section and dolls might be placed in the blue section, while kitchen things are in the pink section.
Will the boys ignore typical boys' toys in the pink section and only go for the ones in the blue section and vice verca for the girls, or will both genders completely ignore the color schemes and just go for the toys they like most?
Fifth and final test: Retain the functional division, but remove all color cues, except for the ones on the toys themselves. Does that make a difference in kids' choises?
Note that all these tests should be done with kids above the age of 4. Research has shown that after an event has taken place, kids below that age are unable to reconcile what they expected before the event with what they actually experienced during the event. For example, if you show them a closed box with pictures of cookies on it and ask them what they think is inside, they'll say cookies, but if you open it up and it's full of magic markers and then ask them again what they thought was in the box before it was opened, they'll say magic markers.
Kids above the age of 4 (if their brains are developing normally for their age) are able to recognize and admit that they originally thought one thing, but now know something different. Kids below that age aren't capable of that and will "adjust" their image of what they thought to what they now know after the fact.
This test doesn't ferret out whether possible gender-specific preferences are innate or learned, but IMHO that's not necessary to test for, since there's already plenty of evidence that those preferences exist. What the test will hopefully show is if specific color schemes in a toy store will actively encourage/discourage children to pick certain toys over others, imposing a subconscious limit on their perceived options.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 12, 2015 13:29:45 GMT
I think their are multiple methods to run this test based on previous comments and a thought of my own:
Method #1:
Paint one aisle blue and a second pink. As recommended, place a neutral partition between them and stock the shelves with the exact same toys (unpainted wooden toys, standard stuffed animals, etc) Will the children notice that both aisles have the same toys or inately gravitate towards the 'gender-appropriate' colored aisle?
Method #2:
Both aisles are neutral colors. This time the toys themselves are colored blue/pink (same toys, just different colors): one aisle pink toys, one aisle blue toys with a neutral partition between them. Will the children notice that both aisles have the same toys or inately gravitate towards the 'gender-appropriate' colored toys?
Method #3:
Mix it up a little. Set up a single neutral colored aisle with contrasting toys paired up (i.e., pink tanks next to blue tanks, pink penguins next to blue penguins, etc). Will the children notice that the toys are in matched pairs or inately gravitate towards the 'gender-appropriate' colored toys?
Method #4:
Gender confusion? Arrange blue colored toys in a pink colored aisle and vice versa. Will the children now gravitate towards one set of toys due to the aisle color or the toy color? Or, will the children be unable to choose any of the toys due to the color scheme?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 12, 2015 14:36:47 GMT
I think these testing systems are somewhat flawed, as we are still dealing with cultural and marketing expectations. for some examples: is a boy likely to go for a pink military vehicle? maybe if it is a Pink Panther Land Rover, and the boy is a WWII African campaign buff. otherwise, he will want it in military colors. will a boy automatically go to the blue section in a hypothetical toy store? yes, if he is used to toy stores putting the toys he is interested in, in the blue section. case in point: when I am shopping for Pepsi, I ignore the part of the aisle that has red packaging, because Pepsi doesn't package in red. so you could do testing with similar toys (that are selected so as to avoid "right" and "wrong" colors) where you had the option of an identical, say, skateboard or bicycle in a choice of colors, or you could have a case where they traded features for color. I.E. a bicycle could have pink shock absorbing forks - would they skip the shocks to avoid the pink? Another option would be to have a computer with customization software and show an image of something that they could customize the colors. this is a challenging topic, because there is so much opportunity for bias that it is hard to eliminate the bias. I suspect pastel colors will prove less popular than manufacturers and parents think, and of the more saturated colors, there will be a correlation between having a well established gender identity and less need for gender posturing in the form of choosing gender specific features or colors. as I've said - I'm secure enough in my masculinity to wear pink. edit: here's the Pink Panther. .JPG)  |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 12, 2015 14:47:11 GMT
You have a point there. Perhaps using the wooden toy/stuffed animal method wouldn't be as unbiased as using toys that are seen as universal. Pink/blue (or some variant) bicycles, balls, tech gadgets, so on. But, I still think that using alternating arrangements of neutral/directed toys/aisles would have validity.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 12, 2015 15:29:29 GMT
You have a point there. Perhaps using the wooden toy/stuffed animal method wouldn't be as unbiased as using toys that are seen as universal. Pink/blue (or some variant) bicycles, balls, tech gadgets, so on. But, I still think that using alternating arrangements of neutral/directed toys/aisles would have validity. It's a tough topic to address, because there are so many variables involved. reasons can vary from the boy being afraid pink will make him catch homosexuality, to the boy just not liking that particular shade of pink, or not being able to accessorize it. I recall a college roommate took ballet classes in high school because the boy/girl ratio was 1:10. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 12, 2015 15:39:54 GMT
It's a tough topic to address, because there are so many variables involved. reasons can vary from the boy being afraid pink will make him catch homosexuality, to the boy just not liking that particular shade of pink, or not being able to accessorize it. I recall a college roommate took ballet classes in high school because the boy/girl ratio was 1:10. Another variable we haven't addressed: Would different age groups yield different results? Younger children may be biased due to parental interference while older children (teenagers?) may have their own personal bias. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 12, 2015 15:56:56 GMT
Potential tracking chart for test:
S1: Neutral aisles w/ colored toys
S2: Colored aisles w/ neutral toys
S3: Neutral aisle w/ mixed colored toys
S4: Colored aisles w/ opposite colored toys
....S1....|....S2.....|....S3.....|....S4....
6-9 |10-13| 6-9 |10-13| 6-9 |10-13| 6-9 |10-13
M|F | M|F | M|F | M|F | M|F | M|F | M|F | M|F
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 12, 2015 16:12:51 GMT
You have a point there. Perhaps using the wooden toy/stuffed animal method wouldn't be as unbiased as using toys that are seen as universal. Pink/blue (or some variant) bicycles, balls, tech gadgets, so on. But, I still think that using alternating arrangements of neutral/directed toys/aisles would have validity. It's a tough topic to address, because there are so many variables involved. reasons can vary from the boy being afraid pink will make him catch homosexuality, to the boy just not liking that particular shade of pink, or not being able to accessorize it. I recall a college roommate took ballet classes in high school because the boy/girl ratio was 1:10. A friend of my elder brother went into Hairdressing when he left school, this shocked his family who presumed he might be gay, in fact he got a lot of attention from his hairdressing college classmates mostly girls and later on his clients. But talking about colour bias and cultural references take white for us in the west we associate it with weddings, purity etc other cultures use it at funerals and associate it with death, there is not an inherent human relationship with that colour. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 12, 2015 18:31:07 GMT
With the method I've proposed, the social/societal bias is not a hindrance, but actually what we're testing for.
It's less about finding out what kids prefer and more about uncovering if what adults THINK they prefer has some validity to it, or if it's completely off.
That's why I've included both "gender-specific" and "gender-neutral"* toys in my lineup and asked that their original colors be preserved, only changing the color scheme of the backdrop.
*Those terms are in quotation marks, because at this point we're actually only assuming that there even ARE such things as gender-specific and gender-neutral toys. We know there's a cultural preference for certain toys, but whether those are also innate preferences is unknown and not really relevant to what we're testing (expectations of adults vs. actual child preferences) anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 13, 2015 6:03:22 GMT
Pink Military. I have serviced equipment on a Pink Tornado.  During the Gulf war, they found that the pink paint worked well as desert camouflage. Real men FLY pink. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 13, 2015 6:11:20 GMT
With the method I've proposed, the social/societal bias is not a hindrance, but actually what we're testing for. It's less about finding out what kids prefer and more about uncovering if what adults THINK they prefer has some validity to it, or if it's completely off.That's why I've included both "gender-specific" and "gender-neutral"* toys in my lineup and asked that their original colors be preserved, only changing the color scheme of the backdrop. *Those terms are in quotation marks, because at this point we're actually only assuming that there even ARE such things as gender-specific and gender-neutral toys. We know there's a cultural preference for certain toys, but whether those are also innate preferences is unknown and not really relevant to what we're testing (expectations of adults vs. actual child preferences) anyway. Exactly. What we believe and the truth behind the kids are often way off. My own experience shows kids are more liable to be attracted to strong primary colours, which is why I suggested that. I also noted when my kids were young, its the actual toy, not the cardboard, that they want, seeing how other kids play with it [pictures on the box] is nothing, they want to see it clearly so they can imagine themselves playing with it. Having a lot of toys on shelves with do-not-touch sealed in boxes is not that good. Having the ability to pick it up and test it, more interest. I therefore suggest that the packaging may be there to influence the parent, the kids want the toy, and are not interested in the box at all. Christmas, the kid rips into the box takes the toy out and now that packaging is somebody else's problem.... You all remember that?... How many kids are remotely interested in keeping the box or tidying up the wrapping paper?... |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 13, 2015 6:21:24 GMT
With the method I've proposed, the social/societal bias is not a hindrance, but actually what we're testing for. It's less about finding out what kids prefer and more about uncovering if what adults THINK they prefer has some validity to it, or if it's completely off.That's why I've included both "gender-specific" and "gender-neutral"* toys in my lineup and asked that their original colors be preserved, only changing the color scheme of the backdrop. *Those terms are in quotation marks, because at this point we're actually only assuming that there even ARE such things as gender-specific and gender-neutral toys. We know there's a cultural preference for certain toys, but whether those are also innate preferences is unknown and not really relevant to what we're testing (expectations of adults vs. actual child preferences) anyway. Exactly. What we believe and the truth behind the kids are often way off. My own experience shows kids are more liable to be attracted to strong primary colours, which is why I suggested that. I also noted when my kids were young, its the actual toy, not the cardboard, that they want, seeing how other kids play with it [pictures on the box] is nothing, they want to see it clearly so they can imagine themselves playing with it. Having a lot of toys on shelves with do-not-touch sealed in boxes is not that good. Having the ability to pick it up and test it, more interest. I therefore suggest that the packaging may be there to influence the parent, the kids want the toy, and are not interested in the box at all. Christmas, the kid rips into the box takes the toy out and now that packaging is somebody else's problem.... You all remember that?... How many kids are remotely interested in keeping the box or tidying up the wrapping paper?... Packaging with images is a good thing. If you're the manufacturer... Ever notice how, especially for action toys aimed at boys, the packaging is much more dramatic looking than the toy itself can ever be? Yeah, I have first hand experience that kids (my own and myself and my friends when I was a kid) will fall madly in love with the concept shown on the package and be miserably disappointed by what's inside. Kids are more trusting than adults. They haven't learned the "your results may vary" sentence yet. They expect what they see to be what they get, so they are HIGHLY affected by packaging. At least before age 10. Toy manufacturers know this. That's how millions upon millions of "X-ray glasses" have been sold by mail order through magazines over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 13, 2015 6:36:08 GMT
At what age does it make the difference?...
I was thinking the younger pre-school toddler for whats in the box more than pre-teen?....
Yes as kids get older.....
But then again, look at what has been suggested by the Lego "friends".
If you look at the packaging it suggests way more than you actually get.
Most of them show packaging with a group of "dolls", except you only get one, then show exotic backdrops for the toys, nit in the box, then suggest "ways to play", that you only do once.
I was concerning the idea of testing the bright colours on the very young, that I kind of got the idea that this was all about, how we perceive younger kids to think rather than what we know, because we cant exactly ask they very young who may only just have language skills, (under 4 yrs old) and are more concerned with do tigers use a knife and fork than answering your questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 13, 2015 6:52:26 GMT
At what age does it make the difference?... I was thinking the younger pre-school toddler for whats in the box more than pre-teen?.... Yes as kids get older..... But then again, look at what has been suggested by the Lego "friends". If you look at the packaging it suggests way more than you actually get. Most of them show packaging with a group of "dolls", except you only get one, then show exotic backdrops for the toys, nit in the box, then suggest "ways to play", that you only do once. I was concerning the idea of testing the bright colours on the very young, that I kind of got the idea that this was all about, how we perceive younger kids to think rather than what we know, because we cant exactly ask they very young who may only just have language skills, (under 4 yrs old) and are more concerned with do tigers use a knife and fork than answering your questions. As I said at the end of my original test proposal, we want to see what the kids choose and then ask them why they made those choises. As you state, any child under the age of 5 can't be used in that regard, because they'll change their views from what they thought to what they now know. If a 3 year old boy picks the blue section because he thinks that's where the boys' toys are, but it's actually full of girls' toys and ask him what he thought was in there before he went in, he'll answer girls' toys. When asked why he then picked that section, whatever answer he gives won't make you any smarter. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 13, 2015 7:16:27 GMT
So how do you test what is nature and what is nurture.
If you only go for the kids that have already been "told" that pink is girls boys is blue, then you wont know what they would go for if they didnt know that.
I am just asking because its common to naturally assume kids already know pink-vs-blue, when in fact, its what we teach them instead?..
Girls do not get born naturally attracted to pink, its only parents insecurities that assure them they should want to like pink.....
See where I am going with this?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 13, 2015 7:55:40 GMT
Getting a quick thread recap, the proposal is for different age kids to be tested.
So, how young can you start.
And can you get kids where mummies likkle snowflake is allowed to play without parental interference.
Nothing could be worse for the test than a young kid getting "oh no you cant play with that one its for Boys" from over-protective mum (Or Dad...) (Although more probably Mum, as most Dads would be more open minded?..)
Then how do you challenge pre-conceived bias.
If likkle madam throws a wobbly because her Pink section has Mechanic toys in it.
Or Sir-Tantrum gets all bovered because his blue section has Barbie.....
Is that kind of failure a result?.
Can you get good data from them if you are allowed to ask why they are bothered by that?..
I suspect yes, it has to be relevant, if the kid feels threatened by having cross-gender toys in the "expected" section, this is what the test is concerned with in the first place.
Older generation pre-teens, I think todays kids are more intelligent than we may suspect.
I have an idea that if my own kids were used, when they were that age, and found a Barbie toy in what they thought was supposed to be a Boys section, they would point it out and have a laugh at either "Your trying to trick us here" or "Someone put that in the wrong place didnt they"?..
And as for the question Pink Girls Boys Blue, their answer would probably be, thats what they have grown up with, and thats what they expect, so Toy shops can "signpost" gender specific toys at the target audience right from the go.
If you want Boys toys, you go to the Blue isles.
If you want Girls, you got to the Pink.
The green and yellow or other colour section in the middle are for toys for anyone....
Thats how it has always been in their life.
If you completely swapped the gender specific toys from one to the other, they would ask why it has been done that way.
Young kids?... I suppose we teach them to be colour prejudice.
I dont believe it comes naturally.
I firmly believe that the pink fluffy mummies demand their girls follow suit and the boys stick to blue as a rebellion against the pink fluffyness that is a sister who's main job in their life is to scweem and scweem and scweem until they get their own way and basically attempt to steal their brothers thunder in every way they can.
Most girls MUST be the centre of attention at all times.
Only those from larger families with older sisters have learnt to share properly.
Growing up, they may learn to be more caring about others.
Newborn infants.... perhaps not, but the pre-walking talking kids, you can do some basic non invasive observational investigations?...
One you are sure that the child can track with their eyes, one way would be to use an eye tracking camera, to watch what the kid looks at.
Lay the kid in a cot, pass various coloured shapes over the cot, and see what they infants eyes are attracted to most?....
|
|
