Are young children more interested in animals than toys?
By Zazie Todd, PhD
At what age do children develop a fascination with animals? A brand new paper by Vanessa LoBue et al investigates young children’s interest in live animals. A set of three studies looked at young children in a naturalistic play environment in which they could choose to interact with animals or toys.
At what age do children develop a fascination with animals? A brand new paper by Vanessa LoBue et al investigates young children’s interest in live animals. A set of three studies looked at young children in a naturalistic play environment in which they could choose to interact with animals or toys.
The animals were always in an enclosure, so the children
could only look at them and not physically touch them. One obvious difference
between animals and toys is that the animals move. It would be very difficult
to control for this, so for the purposes of this research animals were chosen that
did not move much. For example, since hamsters are nocturnal the hamster mostly
slept through the interactions.
The first study was an exploratory one involving children
aged between 11 and 40 months. The animals were a blue and red Betta fish and a
tan Sentinel hamster. They were positioned in containers on opposite walls. In
the middle of the room was a selection of toys, including a doll, an airplane,
fire trucks, building blocks and rattles. The children were given 5-10 minutes to
play whilst their parent sat in a corner of the room, engaged in paperwork. The
parent and experimenter didn’t initiate interaction with the child, but
answered questions if asked. Sessions were videotaped and then analyzed.
The results showed that children interacted more frequently
with the animals than the toys, and spent more time interacting with the
animals than the two most popular toys. The nature of the interactions was also
different; they gestured towards the animals more, talked about them more and
asked more questions.
The second study was similar, but this time as well as the
fish and hamster there was a black Tarantula and an orange and black California
Mountain King snake. These two animals were chosen because they might be seen
as harmful or scary, although again they were safely in containers. There were four toys, so there was an equal number of toys and animals this time. The
children, aged 18 – 36 months, were given five minutes to play on their own as
before, and then the parent joined them for a further five minutes.
The results showed that children interacted with the animals
more often than the toys (as did their parents), and were as interested in the
snake and spider as the hamster and fish. In total the children spent less time
with the animals but the opposite was the case for the parents. Both adults and
children were more likely to gesture towards animals than toys, but there were
no significant effects for children for mentions or questions about the
animals. However, the adults were significantly more likely to talk about or
ask questions about the animals, showing that they directed their child’s
attention towards them.
The final study utilized a more controlled design. The
animals that took part in this study were the hamster and fish, as well as a
green gecko. Similar soft toys were found, and were paired in separate displays
(e.g. live hamster and stuffed toy hamster). In this study, it wasn’t possible
to physically touch either the animal or the toy.
Infants aged 18 – 33 months took part. The experimenter
first showed the child one display, then after a short delay they invited them
to show it to their parent. They then moved on to the second display, and then
the third one. The children spent more time interacting with the real animals
than with the toys, especially when their parent was there too.
In the first experiment, the paperwork completed by the parents included a questionnaire that revealed all the children had experience with fish but not necessarily with hamsters. There was no difference between how children responded to the fish and hamster, so the authors assume the results are not due to novelty. However it would be useful if future studies controlled for novelty, since fish differ in ways that may be salient for children. The researchers obviously couldn't control for animacy, but they did a good job of controlling for movement, since the animals hardly moved at all.
In the first experiment, the paperwork completed by the parents included a questionnaire that revealed all the children had experience with fish but not necessarily with hamsters. There was no difference between how children responded to the fish and hamster, so the authors assume the results are not due to novelty. However it would be useful if future studies controlled for novelty, since fish differ in ways that may be salient for children. The researchers obviously couldn't control for animacy, but they did a good job of controlling for movement, since the animals hardly moved at all.
Taken together, these results suggest that young children
are very interested in live animals, compared to toys, even when the animals are not moving and cannot be touched. In addition, their
parents help to direct interactions towards the animals more, by talking about
them, gesturing towards them and asking questions. And, as the authors put it, people “may find these results surprising, as they suggest that children prefer snakes and spiders to a group of
highly attractive toys.”
Although children of various ages took part in the study,
these results suggest that children’s interest in animals begins at an early
age, and is encouraged by their parents.
Did you have any pets as a child, and if so, what?
Reference
LoBue, V., Bloom Pickard, M., Sherman, K., Axford, C., & DeLoache, J. (2013). Young children's interest in live animals British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31 (1), 57-69 DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02078.x
I wonder if the authors plan to look at children's long-term interest in the animals vs. toys. I wonder if the immediate fascination of the animals would not last, i.e. my 10 month old can't get enough of our dog, the 3 year old, not so much.
ReplyDeleteI am glad this is being quantified, as anecdotally we all now playing in nature is usually superior to anything else (e.g. back in my day...)
I hope they will look at long-term interest too. I think this is a lovely study and will be really interested to see how their research program develops. And you're right, it's good to see this topic being studied empirically.
DeleteOnly speculation, but it seems quite obvious that children would be attracted more to living breathing facets of the real world that they share than inanimate objects that they must create the life of with their own minds.
ReplyDeleteWhen do we start being curious about the world around us? How many of us long into adult hood still have a fascination with the universe and everything contained in it? It's creature nature.
Maybe, but remember that the children could handle the toys and play with them, whereas the animals were all in containers, couldn't be touched and didn't move.
DeleteOther studies of children's interest in animals have tended to look at older children. So this study goes some way to answering your first question - even as toddlers, we are already curious about animals.
When I was a toddler we had a dog and I didn't like him much. He didn't like me either, so we had a kind of understanding that we'd avoid each other. He stole my toys and buried them in the garden a few times (my parents said he was jealous of my birth and was trying to spite me...). Still, was very sad when he died.
ReplyDeleteThat's not a beta, it looks like a gold fish.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. It's a stock photo and I couldn't find one with a child and a red and blue Betta fish, but I liked the way the child is looking at the fish in this photo. Another Anonymous below has kindly identified the fish.
DeleteIt's neither--it's a bloody parrot cichlid, a hybrid.
DeleteThanks. That's what the person below said too. I've been and checked and the photographer identified it as a parrot fish also.
DeleteI wonder if the novelty of the live animals vs the familiarity of the toys had any effect on the results.
ReplyDeleteAnon- it's a blood parrot cichlid. Probably just stock photography and there were no photos from the study.
ReplyDeleteThank you for identifying the fish! You are right, it's a stock photo as I didn't have one from the study.
DeleteI'm not surprised. Animals are part of the natural world and humans have evolved in a world where they have always been surrounded by animals. It would make sense for children to be interested in the very beings they would have once had to hunt for food just to survive. Toys do not have this same quality and humans, not having been on earth for a relatively long time, have not actually had much of a chance to evolve to meet the challenges of their own very rapid technological advancements, including that of toys.
ReplyDeleteInteresting studies - I would also be interested in seeing a longitudinal one that examines whether the children who spent the most time watching the animals are more likely (than children who were less interested) to be pet owners and/or work with animals in adulthood.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't surprise me in the least. When I was very young I always has a fascination with animals. Preferring to watch the crows fly than to play with my toys.
ReplyDeleteI am also interested with the long term result of this study. My child was 1 year and 6 months but she was fascinated with babies more rather than her toys. That's another story I think. But this topic was so interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great read, its interesting seeing some of the comments too, I think I was always more interested in my toys to begin with, but grew to really enjoy Natural Wildlife like seals Cows etc anything really
ReplyDeleteToys will be there tomorrow. (That's the game changer!)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete