Introduction
The study conducted by Alexander and Haines (2002) addresses the idea of a gender disparity in children’s toys itself, including the child’s choice of toy they want to play with. This idea comes from the belief that boys favor toys that resemble masculinity (superheroes, cars, construction toys) and girls prefer dolls, toys on the feminine end of the spectrum (Alexander and Haines, 2002). The researchers believe this gap is a result of learning mechanisms that reinforce gender socialization in sex-typical play. In children, environmental and social factors are the culprit for their behavior towards the toys they play with, however in other species, it is merely biological factors as the main influence (Alexander and Haines, 2002). …show more content…
This was expected because approach is only scored when the monkey comes near the toy but does not contact it; approach could even happen when the monkey was on its way to another toy and passed by (Alexander & Haines, 2002). Nonetheless, the measures for contact revealed important effects for sex differences and toy preference. Alexander and Haines (2002) state, of the entire sample of vervet monkeys, the males had greater physical contact with the “masculine” toys compared to the females (pg. 471). It was the same with female monkeys revealing higher contact with the feminine toys. There lacked a three-way interaction between sex, toy item, and toy category (“feminine”, “masculine”, “neutral”), indicating a consistency among “masculine” and “feminine” toys and sex differences (Alexander & Haines, 2002). The study also revealed a pattern for sex differences in percent contact but not approach which suggests contact behavior was deliberate and the way the monkeys played with the toys resembled child …show more content…
Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Although the vervet monkeys approach to the toys itself were unrelated to their gender or toy category (“masculine,” “feminine,” “neutral”), their contact behavior with the toys were related (Alexander & Haines, 2002). The results showed the male vervet monkeys had higher percent contact with the “masculine” toys and the same occurred for the female monkeys with “feminine” toys. The “neutral” toys were equal among boys and girls, and not one or the other (Alexander & Haines, 2002). The experimenters state the way the monkeys interacted with the toys resembled the sex differences in children and their toy preference. It indicates that toys hold different standards between females and males for both humans and nonhuman primates (Alexander & Haines, 2002). Therefore, it supports the hypothesis sex differences in liking for certain toys can occur
The study conducted by Alexander and Haines (2002) addresses the idea of a gender disparity in children’s toys itself, including the child’s choice of toy they want to play with. This idea comes from the belief that boys favor toys that resemble masculinity (superheroes, cars, construction toys) and girls prefer dolls, toys on the feminine end of the spectrum (Alexander and Haines, 2002). The researchers believe this gap is a result of learning mechanisms that reinforce gender socialization in sex-typical play. In children, environmental and social factors are the culprit for their behavior towards the toys they play with, however in other species, it is merely biological factors as the main influence (Alexander and Haines, 2002). …show more content…
This was expected because approach is only scored when the monkey comes near the toy but does not contact it; approach could even happen when the monkey was on its way to another toy and passed by (Alexander & Haines, 2002). Nonetheless, the measures for contact revealed important effects for sex differences and toy preference. Alexander and Haines (2002) state, of the entire sample of vervet monkeys, the males had greater physical contact with the “masculine” toys compared to the females (pg. 471). It was the same with female monkeys revealing higher contact with the feminine toys. There lacked a three-way interaction between sex, toy item, and toy category (“feminine”, “masculine”, “neutral”), indicating a consistency among “masculine” and “feminine” toys and sex differences (Alexander & Haines, 2002). The study also revealed a pattern for sex differences in percent contact but not approach which suggests contact behavior was deliberate and the way the monkeys played with the toys resembled child …show more content…
Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Although the vervet monkeys approach to the toys itself were unrelated to their gender or toy category (“masculine,” “feminine,” “neutral”), their contact behavior with the toys were related (Alexander & Haines, 2002). The results showed the male vervet monkeys had higher percent contact with the “masculine” toys and the same occurred for the female monkeys with “feminine” toys. The “neutral” toys were equal among boys and girls, and not one or the other (Alexander & Haines, 2002). The experimenters state the way the monkeys interacted with the toys resembled the sex differences in children and their toy preference. It indicates that toys hold different standards between females and males for both humans and nonhuman primates (Alexander & Haines, 2002). Therefore, it supports the hypothesis sex differences in liking for certain toys can occur