Doll House vs. Fire Station

In this post I’m going to be bringing together a number of different themes (and not signing with babies, for a change) that are salient in research on early child development: Sex differences in choice of toys; the fact that girls learn to talk on average earlier than boys, and the relationship between different types of play and language development. And I’m going to do all this by highlighting a a photo I took last week while taking care of my twin grandchildren, Nate and Olivia.

• First, sex differences in choice of toys: From the time they were old enough to make choices for themselves, it’s been clear (despite efforts from parents and grandparents to the contrary) that Nate was in love with anything with wheels and vroom-vroom noises and Olivia with anything pink, purple, and with the word “princess” or “baby” in the title. In fact, one of the most recent of Olivia’s favorites is a large pink and white plastic doll house complete with pink and white frilly furniture and a pink clad baby. Needless to say, Nate is not equally enchanted.

• Second, sex differences in verbal development: One of the most robust of all differences between boys and girls is the fact that—on average—girls learn to talk earlier than boys. (Note. This is true for learning words, but not signs. No sex difference there.)

• Third, relationship between types of play and verbal development: Dr. Susan Goodwyn and I discovered a number of years ago that pretend play, in contrast to manipulative play (where the child just moves pieces in some way—like shape sorters, hammers and peg boards, puzzles), helps facilitate language development. There are a number of reasons why, but the main one is because pretend play involves so much language itself! The child is thinking and often explaining out loud pieces of some kind of simple plot, either alone or in response to questions from adults. Susan and I suspect that one of the reasons boys lag behind girls in language is because the toys they are typically given (with some exceptions to be sure) are less likely to inspire pretending than the baby dolls, tea sets, and doll houses typically given girls.

So, how do these three observations relate to the photo above? Take a close look at the nature of the toy Nate is playing with. It is, in fact, a miniature structure. But instead of being a typical “doll house” like Olivia’s, it’s a pretend fire station. It has many of the same things Olivia’s does--a kitchen (firefighters have to eat after all), bathroom, bedroom and living area—but it also has a pole to slide down, a treadmill, an elevator, a fire truck, and a heliport! My point is that it has characteristics that Nate, like lots of little boys, value while at the same time promoting the type of play (i.e., pretending) that is so good for language development. And he loves it! I stood and watched him play for a long time and was amazed at the imaginary scenarios he was describing in words, both to himself and in explanation to me.

The lesson in all this is directed at parents and grandparents as they think about appropriate toys. Simply, keep in mind that pretending is critical to both boys and girls and that sex difference in preferences for pretend scenarios are often a fact of life, but that with a bit of creative thinking on our own parts, it’s possible to satisfy both requirements.

Happy Signing (and don’t forget to visit us on Facebook)!

Linda

Linda Acredolo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, UC Davis
and
Co-Founder, The Baby Signs® Program

The "Truck" Gene

When I started graduate school in Developmental Psychology at the University of Minnesota in 1969, the Woman’s Movement was just getting underway. Yes, I joined a “consciousness raising group” and started complaining about how my boyfriend wouldn’t pick up his wet towels and constantly left dirty clothes wherever he took them off. I also started religiously using “he/she,” instead of just “he” in my writings and talked about the Chair” of our department rather than the “Chairman.” (I was never willing, however, to give up my bra having waited until nearly age 18 to even need one!)

The Woman’s Movement was having an even more profound effect on the science of Developmental Psychology. Up to this point there had been an underlying assumption that, of course, little boys and little girls are very different. Now the shift was strongly in the opposite direction: little boys and little girls, while undeniably different physically, are not different in talents, penchants, or psychological traits until society makes them so! It was our differential treatment of boys and girls from the time they are clothed in pink vs. blue baby blankets that accounts for the myriad differences we see later.

Many wonderful things came out of this shift: Title IX calling for equal support of women’s sports, concern about getting girls interested in math and science, general shifts in attitudes toward “traditional” roles (girls can be doctors!) to name only a few.

There is one area, however, where change has not happened—and not for want of trying. In fact, our failure to equate little boys and girls in this domain has contributed mightily to a shifting of the pendulum back toward a middle position, toward admitting there are some fundamental behavioral differences between little boys and little girls (at least on average) and that’s fine!

I’m talking about the “truck” gene which, I am increasingly positive, is located on the Y chromosome and, therefore, primarily found in little boys. Despite the efforts of now generations of parents to make sure that little boys have access to dolls and little girls have access to trucks, it’s increasingly clear that love affair between little boys and trucks is not going away!

I’ve seen this up close and personal with my twin grandchildren, Nate and Olivia. Olivia’s first sign was MOON and her first word was “more;” Nate’s first sign and word was “truck—the later shouted at full volume whenever one is spotted. Yes, he’ll hug a stuffed animal at bedtime and enjoys books about lots of things, but given the choice it’s truck, truck, truck. This was abundantly clear Christmas morning when Nate practically leaped from one end of the couch to the other as his dad began unwrapping a present and the hood of a truck appeared through the paper. “Truck…Dump!” Of course, Grandpa (my husband Larry, the purchaser of the truck) and Dad Jim (the purchaser of an even bigger truck that appeared later that morning) are thrilled. And why not? After all, who do you think passed the truck gene onto Nate!?

Happy Signing,

Linda

Linda Acredolo, Ph.D.

Co-Founder, the Baby Signs Program

and

Professor Emeritus, UC Davis