Week 4 Response

I was uncomfortable with Pellegrini and Jones’ conclusion that “Children play longer and in more complex ways when they interact in same-gender groups and with gender-preferred toys,” because when I think of gender-preferred toys I think of games like Barbie Girls. This causes me to wonder – what is the deciding factor for a toy’s gender appeal? If all the avatars in Barbie Girls had occupations outside of the service industry, but the avatars remained female, would young girls still see the game as targeted towards girls? In other words, are the games themselves dictating gender roles, or are the societal norms that the girls enter with overriding everything else? If games could be shaped to appeal to a specific gender, while disregarding societal norms (e.g. women in subservient roles) then games could be used as a very empowering tool.

Finally, I was intrigued by the fact that girls used less fantastical language when they were playing in mixed-gender groups and with toys perceived to be for males or gender-neutral. This reminds me of stereotype threat, where despite equal levels of intelligence/talent, someone belonging to a certain group with a perceived stereotype may perform worse because they are scared of confirming that stereotype. It was interesting to see how early on in child development this appeared.