Does what a toy represents mean anything to a young child?

June 1, 2006 11:21 AM

Are there developmentally harmful implications of giving a very young child toys that are uncommon representations (U.S. senators or industrial manufacturing robots) rather than common ones (trucks and puppies)? Or benefits vice versa?

While watching her 1-year-old nephew open birthday presents, my girlfriend and I began discussing whether a fire truck wagon actually meant anything to the kid or if it was just a bulgy thing that rolls. We were trying to figure out what benefit giving a kid a "truck" would be over giving him, say, a "Barack Obama on wheels" (aside from the obvious issue of availability).

Do toys that represent common things help children develop better abilities to decode symbols or stylizations? At what point in a child's development can he/she relate representations with what they actually represent?

posted by pokermonk to Society & Culture (9 answers total)

With a fire truck he can go "vroom" or "aroooo AROOOOO!" when he's playing with it.

With Barack Obama on wheels, he could go "As Americans, we can take enormous pride in the fact that courage has been inspired by our own struggle for freedom, by the tradition of democratic law secured by our forefathers and enshrined in our Constitution," but I kind of doubt he would.

Our two-year-old had a little skateboarding dude, and once he began adding words, "skate" was an early one he used when he saw the real skateboarding dudes in the school parking lot down the street.

His bus toy also seemed to give him "bus" as his first word for all trucks (and commuter rail). That, in turn, provided opportunities to expand his vocabulary:

"Bus!"

"No ... that's a train."

"Train!"

"Good!"

vs.

"Barack Obama!"

"No ... that's Heather Graham as Rollerbaby!"

"Rolderbebb!"

"Good!"

I guess I know which scenario I find more useful as we build his 275-word vocabulary.
posted by mph at 12:14 PM on June 1, 2006 [4 favorites]

Trucks and puppies are things one encounters on a fairly regular basis, so it's easier for kids to learn what the words "truck" and "puppy" mean. Even if you live in the DC area (as I do) you aren't likely to encounter a U.S. Senator on any kind of regular basis, unless you work on Capitol Hill.

And, even then, what kind of fun can you have with a Senator doll?

That being said, there did use to be, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, a Gingrich doll filled with catnip that you could give to your cat. The idea, of course, was that the cat would bite it and bat it around, and you could pretend it was the real Gingrich.
posted by cerebus19 at 12:34 PM on June 1, 2006

As far as practical knowledge goes, "firetruck" and "puppy" are more useful for understanding and vocab.

On the other hand, some oft cited study from my grad classes (which i can't seem to find) talked about how the wider variety of different kinds of sounds, sights and similar would establish a wider variety of connections between unrelated things in a child's brain, allowing them (theoretically) to be more creative in later life.

It's hard to argue, however, that a Barack Obama doll would be vastly different than a firefighter or baby doll for visual stimulus. Unless of course it spouted speeches instead of, "Mama!"

Then again, there's the cool factor. I saw two beautiful little girls in frilly dresses clinging to rubber Halloween rats in a restaurant as if they were baby dolls and I thought, "Woah. Those are either sick parents or really cool kids."
posted by Gucky at 12:49 PM on June 1, 2006

My son likes to act out what he sees around him on a day to day basis. It is his way of trying to understand the world. He likes to play with a tractor because his favorite tv show has a tractor in it. He then acts out what he saw on tv and adds new situations for the ones he did not understand.
Toys he does not recognize from his small world he will not touch.
posted by kudzu at 12:56 PM on June 1, 2006

Humans, even young ones, are very, very good at abstractions. Don't underestimate a kids' ability to understand what makes a fire truck a fire truck, and be able to identify its essence in very simple drawings. It's also a lot easier to explain to a little kid why this is a fire truck and that isn't, and to relate that abstraction they know well through toys and cartoons to the big noisy thing that goes screaming down the street.

It's not as easy to explain why that's a Barack Obama toy and not just Mr. Man, or a Dad toy, etc. Maybe if Barack Obama wore a particular sort of cape or had a distinctive hairstyle, it would be easier.
posted by ulotrichous at 2:52 PM on June 1, 2006

I remember I was amazed that as soon as my daughter could talk (about 18 months) she said "duck" when she saw a picture of a duck, even if we had never seen that picture before. This continues to amaze me because to me those children's pictures do not look like real animals at all.
posted by davar at 3:09 PM on June 1, 2006

Probably no harmful effects. (As long as they can't swallow small parts.) Kids will either ignore those things that are developmentally above their level, or play with it in a way that would be developmentally appropriate. Some toys, such as building toys they may try to play with if they see other children playing with them, but may get fustrated and throw a tantrum when they can't make it do what they want it to do.

If you think about many of the toys out there, they do not relate to anything that people actually have in life, they are just toys that are used to increase motor or eye skills. (Tops or jack-in-the-box.) Other cultures may still use an abacus, but my kids have never seen anyone actually use one, but they do play with theirs. We even have a toy toaster that they think is fun because the toast pops out the top, but all they have ever seen is a toaster oven. Later in life they may have an "ah-ha" moment when they understand the toy, but it depends on the toy and the age that they got it. (Think about Pepe Le Pew cartoons - kids think it is funny because the cat is getting chased. Adults have a much different understanding of why it is funny.)

wife of 445supermag
posted by 445supermag at 6:18 PM on June 1, 2006

They probably would not be interested in playing with them. Children are drawn to toys that serve their cognitive and emotional development. Fascinations with trucks, dinosaurs, bulldozers, etc., is quite common, and results from an interest in power and visible results. Dolls and stuffed animals help kids model human interactions and begin to understand the idea of 'other'. And so on. These are the popular toys not because adults designate them, make them, or give them, but because they are intrinsically attractive to children -- attractive because they serve the purpose of human development.
posted by Miko at 7:27 PM on June 1, 2006

Read Saki's story The Toys of Peace.

Your kids will use any toy to have fun with. What you want them to learn has little to do with it.
posted by KRS at 12:00 PM on June 2, 2006