2" V :7 y. 3;
1:,' ”ti g‘.~_‘r.'k

: “5‘ . z

‘1': 5.5" I - .

iikgén ‘ .

Li“ ‘hfiaég‘fL‘

‘ ' SK _1‘3-;1Ap' '

..—... .
F.‘ a:w-’j‘..\

" i:
l o- H.:_';."...3 01“"

Jv;
., M :3 321,5: . < . .. . h.¥.:é: tel-3
mfi’ilm- 1" unfit—'5‘" I II 4331..“ . 5—, . I L “171‘.-
0‘.“ Y . 5-.41-"V-VJrJ"
M} "' VI" ('7'; I”
"‘ ”‘1' '3: u ’ "an-:3:
,3. “Jim Irv: .:- ..

a”
5
..

.u.
1:1
'53-.

. -.... " ~-:.
'~' ‘-‘=‘~ 2‘: -.-.

,:,fgfi~§4$w¥;rm ~13;

“3'2?“ 137%3»;

~.:;.-.\:§;-}.-
- hzg‘xv “h“:

“a.

F‘Y‘v: “ft“

. mat-=2";
Hr 1333-5. ”:4 7'?

 

.. 2“ . 32:!“ :1:-

 

‘.« ..:.-'-
0

0‘5}; ‘
:f .-

‘.‘|‘

{2,}

I I.

"I"?! '

.1 ”Exv‘li \.
.‘n; - Md”.
‘._.;12€% :IIPQ‘? ,~

I

r‘fl'vm

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
U . 'ty

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

TOYS AND THE CONSUMER
OPERANT MARKET SEGMENTATION

presented by

DANA GUSTAVUS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MASTER'S degree in ADVERTISING

9 fly

/ Major professor

Date 8-3-78 ' ;

0-7639

 

‘IIIII:
3‘ l
I
l‘
I
'I
(II.
I

lit

TOYS AND THE CONSUMER:

OPERANT MARKET SEGMENTATION

By

Dana Gustavus

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requiranents
for the degree of

MASTER.OF ARTS

College of Communication Arts
Department of Advertising

1978

ABSTRACT

TOYS AND THE CONSUMER:
OPERANT MARKET SEGMENTATION

BY

Dana Gustavus

thed educators and psychologists have determined
that play is indispensible to a child's development and
the tools of play, toys, are a thriving business. The
purpose of this research is to attempt to understand some
of the criteria which parents use in selecting toys and
upcoming trends in public thought. This information
can provide invaluable insights for creating products,
marketing and advertising strategies to better fit the
-consumer's needs.

I mm also interested in the social implications of
some of the attitudes the toy buying public holds. Specif-
ically. I evaluated the charge by feminists that parents
perpetrate rigid sex role stereotypes through their toy
choices. I am interested too in whether there is an

educational toy boom resulting from the overemphasis on

Dana Gustavus

accelerating a child's intellectual development, as many
psychologists charge.

Q—technology is a useful tool for segmenting people
according to their expressed attitudes. This research
instrument operantly defines groups of consumers as they
relate to a variety of toy buying experiences.

Subjects were chosen as they reflected a wide range
of demographic variables and toy purchase experiences.

Two factors emerged to characterize the possible
attitude segments. Included here for each is a descriptive
shorthand term.

Factor I -- The Play Purist

Factor II -- The Eager Educationalist

The findings of this research proved that consumers
could. indeed. be segmented according to their attitudes
relative to a toy buying situation.

Application of the findings are provided in the final
chapter that are suggestive of theoretical and.practical
implications. This includes social concerns, as well as
specific manufacturing, marketing and communication

strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In grateful appreciation I would like to acknowledge
Dr. Charles Mauldin's patient assistance and delightful
example as well as the comfort of the warm.support of my

friends and family.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sexism in Toys . . . . . . . . . . . 6

An Educational Trend in Toys. . . . . . . 10

Attitude Segmentation . . . . . . . . . 14

The Research Instrument . . . . . . . . 17

The Proposed Study . . . . . . . . . . 21

II 0 momm O O O O C O O O O O O O 23

Selection of the Q—Sample. . . . . . . . 23

Selection of Respondents . . . . . . . . 26

Administration of the Q-Sample . . . . . . 27

Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . 29

III. INTERPRETATION’ . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Brief Sketches. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Factor I, The Play Purist . . . . . . 34

Factor II, The Eager Educationalist . . . 35

Consensus Items . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Factor I, The Play Purist . . . . . . . 55

Evidence for Sketch . . . . . . . . 55

Factor II, The Eager Educationalist. . . . 68

Evidence for Sketch . . . . . . . . 68

iii

Chapter Page
The Double Q-Sorts . . . . . . . . . . 79
IV. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Theoretical Implications . . . . . . . . 81
Practical Implications . . . . . . . . . 85

Individual Implications. . . . . . . . . 87
for Factor I. . . . . . . . . . . .

Individual Implications. . . . . . . . . 91
for Factor II . -, . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Focus Interview Schedule. . . . . . . . . 102
B. Statements in the Q~Samp1e . . . . . . . . 104
C. Q-Matrix and Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 108
D. Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . 110

E. Unrotated Factor Loadings . . . . . . . . 115

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
D-l. Factor 1, Demographic Data . . . . . . . . 110
D—2. Factor II. Demographic Data. . . . . . . . 111

E-l. Uhrotated Factor Loadings . . . . . . . . 115

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Toys are a child's first tools for exploring,
communicating and learning about himself and the world
around him. As most parents realize, play is a child's
"work," the process through which he discovers who he is
and who he can be. Choosing a toy should be "as simple
as child's play," but as many parents find, it is not
so simple after all.

Toy manufacturing is also big business. Every year
some 900 toymakers compete for more than $4 billion in
retail sales. Hence, an insight into the factors that
influence a parent's choice of toys are of major interest

to the toy industry.

As a matter of introduction, I will first determine
if play, in the opinion of renowned psychologists, is
indeed important to a child's well-being and why. Next,
I will discuss two issues current in toyland; the charge
by many feminists that parents are perpetrating rigid
sex role stereotypes by giving toys to kids that
telegraph their sexist prejudices and the claim of noted
educators and psychologists that there is a boom in
educational toys which is the result of an overemphasis
on early stimulation of children. I will then explain
the advantages and use of attitude segmentation followed
with a description of Q-methodology, the technique I
chose to segment people according to their expressed
attitudes about toys. Finally, I will conclude this

chapter with a formalized statement of purpose.

Of what value is play to the child? Noted child
psychologists and educators agree that play is essential
to a child's development. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget,
famous for his studies on the thought processes of
children, holds that play is the basis of all later
cognitive functioning and is therefore indispensible
in the life of a child. According to Piaget, play is
the medium by which the child expresses not only needs,
but also an understanding of experiences. Play is
also the primary vehicle for the expression of thought
when the child is just learning the symbolic functhans
of language in the early stages of his life.1

In Intellectual Growth in Young Children, Susan
Isaacs says: ‘

The ability to evoke the past in imaginative

play seems to be very closely connected with the

growth of the power to evoke the future in

constructive hypotheses."

Stated differently, the ability to make correct
predictions grows out of a correct understanding of past

events. But understanding and assimilation of past

events is developed by the child through play. Thus,

 

1Jean Piaget, Dreams and Imitation (New'York, 1962).

ZNew York, 1966, p. 104

play is irreplaceable in the ability to formulate
hypotheses. 3

Erik H. Erikson maintains that the lifelong feeling
of mastery of the environment must be established early
in a child's life or prdbably not at all. Play represents
a world in which a child can be a master of whatever
environment he chooses. In his imagination physical
objects can do whatever he desires, no matter how

stubbornly they Obey natural laws.4

Play is purported to be related to creativity.
Prdblem-solving is an aspect of play, since some
solutions-are more creative than others. yCreative
people exhibit a strong need to manipulate the environ-
ment in search of solutions. They are independent and
flexible, toying with ideas, however wild. They learn
to harness these ideas with logic and reality. Above
all, they have an attitude of prdblem-solving whose

roots are found in play.5

 

3Irene Athey, "Piaget, Play and Problem Solving,"
in Play as a Learning Medium, ed. Doris Sponseller
(washington, D.C., 1974), p. 42.

4Childhood and Society (New York, 1950), pp.
211-213.

5Athey, p. 48.

S. R. Slavson sees play as a necessary tension
reliever for young children. He values its function as
intensely cathartic and incorporates play to a consider-
able degree in his therapy recommendations for disturbed
children.

A child may use play to relax tension and anxiety.

The service of play in finding permissible and

acceptable outlets for primary impulses is of

considerable value with which one must reckon."6

Finally, in an article entitled "Play is Valid"
(1968), Lawrence Frank says that the exploratory activity
in play is the basis of a rich sensory concept formation.
With his sensory capacities, a child learns to listen,
taste, smell, see, feel and grasp and master these
experiences through continual play. Frank asserts that

this is the most intensive and fruitful learning activity

of a child's whole life.7

 

6"Play Group Therapy for Young Children," The Nervous

 

7Qi1ghgd Education, xuv (March 1968), 433-440.

A

Sexism in Toys

The American Toy Fair in New‘York was picketed on
February 21, 1974, by activists and mothers with children
in hand protesting "sexist" and "militarist" toys. Includ-
ing some National Organization of Women members, the
pickets claimed that toy manufacturers' products direct
“militaristic" war toys and guns at boys and advertise
toys and dolls for girls that encourage "narcissism and
limited inspiration. "8

From all appearances one would speculate that consumers
everywhere were taking issue with the question of the
inherent sexism.of toys, in conjunction with the influ-
ence of the home in setting the stage for sex role
stereotypes.

/§Letty Cottin Pogrebin charges that we telegraph our
prejudices and preconceptions with our choice of toys for
our children. Without words our toy selections relate a
distinct message:

Do-it—yourself crib games for boys. Delicate
mObiles for girls. Later he gets baseballs, model

ships, erector sets, chemistry kits. She gets
Barbie Dolls, tea sets, nurse kits.

 

8James P. Forkan, "Toy Execs See Unisex Trend; Cite
'Action Dolls' For Boys," Advertising Age, February 25, 1974,
p. 2.

And they both get the signal. That they
are expected to be very different from one
another. That he can experiment, solve problems,
compete, take risks. That she is passive, do-
mestic, cultured, and cautious."9

!

“4.1

'§<mmoreover, the following Observations cited from a
1972 study conducted by Louis Wolf Goodman and Janet
Lever, Yale university sociologists, whose examination
of sexetyping of children's toys seem to convict further
the play of American children and the buying habits of
their parents' of having a double standard. NO single
scientific toy was reported bought for a girl by any
field worker during thirty hours Christmastime Observa-
tion in a toy department. The Observers also found that
adults spent more time choosing toys for boys than they

( did choosing toys for girls.10
most of us will agree that a great deal of toys
are sexually anonymous. It is the way we present them

to the child that reflects stereotypes and causes them

to be perpetuated, say the advocates of toys for "free

 

9"Down with Sexist upbringing," in The First M.S.
Reader, ed. Francine Klagsburn (New York, 1973), p. 164.

10Nancy Lyon, "Do Kids Need Toys Every December 25th?
Do Kids Need Toys At All? Are Any Toys Worth This Shopping
Ordeal?" Mg;§. Magazine, December 1972, p. 57.

children." The effects of the large environment upon a
child's play interests need to be considered, they insist.
unless the adults in the home are committed to role
flexibility, the child will ignore even the most appeal-
ing toys if they seem inappropriate.11

Supporting the view that toys follow the prevailing
attitude of society, one columnist states, "Sexist toys
will be with us until toymakers decide that there is no
longer a market for them --- until our culture recognizes
women in roles other than housekeeper, hostess, mother,
and seductress."12

>\ Whatever our good intentions, children will not be
transformed by the nonsexist toys we give them, according
to Ms. Pogrebin. She reflects that toys are not magic
and can not do a vanishing act on the specter of sexism
in a society Obsessed with notions of "manliness" and
"femininity."
Perhaps the 20th century preoccupation with
"normality" has lead us to discriminate so vigor-
ously between the two sexes and to label everything

each must do and'become. Yet it could be otherwise.
Without rigid guideposts for "normal feminine " and

 

11Letty Cottin Pogrebin, "Toys For Free Children,"
in Sexism.and‘Youth, ed. Diane Gersoni - Stavn. (New
York, 1974), p. 408.

12Lyon, p. 59.

9

"normal masculine" behavior, we would learn to cope

with all the surprising shadings of diverse human

behavior."13

In agreement with Ms. Pogrebin, Dr. Lee Salk, head of
Pediatric Psychology at New'York Hospital/Cornell Medical
Center adds, "Toys are not the cause of sex roles but the
result. Whether you give a child a woman-lawyer doll or.
a male-nurse doll, if its parents have inflexible atti-

tudes about male and female roles, then the child will

! most likely grow up with those same fixed role ideas."l4

 

13Pogrebin, "Toys For Free Children," p. 415

14Lyon, p. 59.

10

Ag_§ducationalgggend in_g9ys

Most modern parents are aware of the importance of
the early years in child development and are concerned
about providing a proper environment for their children.
However, another aspect of the issue of toys, according
to one researcher, is the latest irresistible trend to
turn infants and preschoolers over to educational toys
and let them do the teaching. She makes reference to
those toys which prominent educators have "scientifically
developed" (it may be more accurately said that they
frequently sell their names for use in the product's
advertising).15

After conducting studies with infants and pre-
schoolers at Harvard, Dr. Richard Feinbloom, professor
of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School concluded that
there seemed to be a vague middle class belief that
intellectual competition begins in the cradle or not
at all. There is also a fear that infants will be in-
tellectually stunted for life who aren't given early
sensory stimulation.16

Dr. Feinbloom, as well as Dr. Peter H. Wolff of

 

15Lyon, p. 98.

16Lyon, p. 98.

ll

Harvard Medical Center addressed the subject further in
the December 1969 issue of the professional journal
Pediatrics:

In a society such as ours which stresses the

financial and social advantages of academic achieve-—

ment, parents are likely to consider themselves

negligent if they do not exploit every opportunity

for increasing their children's intellectual

performance . " 7

Recent behavioral studies which demonstrate that the
human infant is much more organized at birth than psychol-
ogists once thought and the fact that the newborn infant's
perceptual and motor systems are notably sophisticated
mechanisms for coding and organizing information have
fueled public interest in educational toys.18

In addition, beyond devising an enrichment program
for "disadvantaged children," child psychologists are
experimenting with the future of the enrichment Of all
children who have until now'been judged as developing

at a satisfactory rate.19 In conjunction with this

 

l7"Critical Periods and Cognitive Development in
the First 2 Years," XLIV, 999

18Wolff and Feinbloom, p. 999.
19R. H. Barsch, "The Infant Curriculum - A Concept for

Tomorrow," The Exceptional Infant - The NOrmal Infant
(1967), quoted in Wolff and Feinbloom, p. 999.

12

interest in early education, pre-schools for the
well-to-do are fast becoming an established institution
in suburbia. Their curricula which rely on toys as
educational devices intend to teach infants specific
skills and emphasize the acceleration of cognitive
development.20

On the business end, toy manufacturers report a
tremendous surge of growth in the sales of pre-school and
educational toys in the June 5, 1970 issue of the trade
magazine Toy :

From 1965 to the present, pre-school toys have

been the glamour category of the toy industry.

Accounting for approximately 4 percent of the

industry in 1965, this category has grown to a

point where, for some retail outlets, it accounts

for as much as 15 percen ."21

Lending further support to the question of an"educa-
tional fad" in toys is an excerpt from the February 1972
issue of Fortune:

Many toy companies that have ignored the pre-school

market are now scrambling into it, and that is a

market where it is Often more important to win the
mother's favor than the child's....It appears that

 

20"Social Intervention and the Malleability of the
Child," The Disgggantaged Child, ed. M. Deutch and
associates (1 7), quoted in Wolff and Feinbloom, p. 1002.

21Quoted in H. RObert Quilitch, "Can Toys Really Teach?"
Saturday Review, November 16, 1974, p. 60.

13

some toy companies intend to capitalize on mothers'
naiveté. Parents have in the last few years exhibited
a preference for toys that appear to be "educational."
...Toys that purport to teach such things as object
permanence (the ability to remember the existence

of something even if it is out of sight) are being
marketed for children under a year old."2

 

22Quilitch, p. 60.

14

Attitude Segmentatigg

As we are all aware, today's economy encourages
greater floods of new products every year to vie for
the attention of the buyer. It has long been recognized
that to deal with consumers as an undifferentiated
"one-size-fits-all" mass is most often an inferior
communication strategy. Quips Russell Haley, "The
so-called average consumer existed only in the minds of
some marketing people."23

Furthermore, most marketers and educators are
‘well acquainted with the value of developing products
and images to appeal to homogeneous clusters of people.
"In today's economy, each brand appears to sell effect-
ively only to certain segments of any market and not the
whole market," noted Daniel Yankelovich.24

Stephen Geyser reiterates:

Advertisers will ordinarily be ill-advised
to design general-purpose messages for most
products, or to judge the success of these
messages as though it were possible to reach all

 

23"Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-oriented Research
Tool," Journal of Marketing, XXXII (July, 1968), 35.

24“New Criteria for Market Segmentation," Harvard
Business Review, XLII (March - April 1964), 89.

15

of the people all of the time. They need much

more accurate specification of advertising Objectives,

more refined knowledge of the potential audiences,

and more precise tailoring of messages and media to

specific segments of the population."25

Looking further, Harry Heller of the Gruden/Appel
Research Corporation, comments, "Attitudes cause purchases
in Obvious ways. BefOre most products are bought,
attitudes that are congruent with the purchase are

held by the person."26

Attitudes perform certain general functions according
to Katz. They (a) help the individual cope with a complex
world resultant from an individual's tendency to maximize
rewards from the external environment and (b) provide a
channel of expression for his fundamental values}.7

Thus, one might logically cOnclude that attitudes
provide insights into a buyer's behavior. Moreover, as

Richard Halpern Observes, if attitudes and behavior are

 

25Bauer, Raymond and Stephen Greyser, What Americans
Think of Advertising (1969). quoted in Russell I. Haley,
"Beyond Benefit Segmentation," Journal of Advertising
Research, II (August 1971), 8.

26“Defining Target Markets by Their Attitude Profiles,"
in Attitude Research on the Rocks, ed. Lee Adler and
Irving Crespi (American Marketing Association, 1968),
p. 45.

27Harry C. Triandis, Attitude and Attitude Change
(New‘York, 1971), pp. 5 - 6.

16

related we could predict the latter if we could only
measure the former.28

One might surmise that segmenting groups on the basis
of attitudes is tantamount to providing motivational
segmentation. Indeed, Yankelovich perceived the economy
of scrutinizing differences between buyer attitudes when
he commented, "By segmenting markets on the basis of the
values, purposes, needs and attitudes relevant to the
product being studied...we avoid.misleading information

derived from attempts to divide people into types."29

 

28“Some Observations About Attitude Measurement
and Behavior," in Attitude Research on the Rocks, ed.
Lee Adler and Irving Crespi (American Marketing
Association, 1968), p. 38.

zgYankelovich, p . 90 .

17

The Research Instgument

Q—methodology has often been used to segment people
according to their expressed attitudes. The creator of
Qemethodology, William.Stephenson, holds that a Q-sort
(ranking of statements of opinion by individuals in
order of preference) is a replica or model of an overall
attitude about a matter, which an individual holds.30

An illustration of this technique is William
Stephenson's study of the use of tuna fish by house-
wives :

In a study on the promotion of tuna fish, one
begins by interviewing housewives to elicit from them
their opinions about it --- how they use it, what
they prefer, what others say about it. From.the
protocol it is a simple matter to collect statements
of Opinion, as distinct from fact, about tuna fish.
To say "I like white fleSh only" is an opinion:
to say that "the last can I bought was 58 cents“
is a matter of fact. Our concern systematically
is always with opinion...From the Q—population
(of statements of opinion) a Q—sample is drawn:
Q-sorts performed by housewives bring two different
factors into focus. One, when the factors are
examined, indicates that the women Of that "group"
are interested in tuna fish largely as a "filler"-
for a staple meal --- to give flavor to a casserole
of macaroni or rice: the others use it as a snack
only, for a dainty weight-watching lunch or the like.

 

30"The Contributions of Q to Attitude Research,"
in Attitude Research on the Rocks, ed. Lee Adler and
Irving Crespi (American Marketing Association, 1968),
p. 162.

18

Obviously different social factors are involved

--- women with low incomes and many mouths to

feed are less likely to use it for a “snack."31

A vast array of products and their publics have been
examined via Q—technique including men's toiletries,32
automobiles,33 magazines34 and toothpaste.35 Haley's
study of toothpaste users identified four segments -—-
one concerned with decay prevention which Haley labeled
"The WOrriers," one with brightness of teeth, "The
Sociables,“ one with the flavor and appearance of the

product, "The Sensory Segment," and one with price, "The

Independents."36 Haley noted that each consumer segment,

 

31Uhpublished paper expounding methodological and
theoretical foundations in application of Q~methodology
in advertising (Columbia, Missouri, 1967), pp. 9-10.

32Ricky H. McCarty, "Packaging and Advertising of
Men's Toiletries: An Intensive Analysis of a Pure Type"
(unpublished university of Missouri Master of Arts thesis,
1972).

33Eric D. Fischer, "The AutomObile and the Consumer:
Operant Market Segmentation" (unpublished Michigan State
university Master of Arts thesis, 1973).

34Laurel Booth, "An Image Study of McCall's Magazine"
(unpublished university of Missouri Master Of Arts thesis,
1968).

35Haley,'A Decision-oriented Research Tool," pp. 30-35.

36Haley, "A Decision-oriented Research Tool," p. 31.

19

"represents a potentially productive focal point for
marketing efforts."37

Q-technique has been used to assess public opinion
of certain concepts38' 39 as well as such services as

automated teller banking systems,40 libraries,41

 

37Haley, "Beyond Benefit Segmentation," p. 3-8.

38Gerald F. King, "Sex Education for the Mentally
Impaired: An.Attitude Segmentation Study“ (unpublished
Michigan State university research report, 1974).

39Charles R. Mauldin and Janeen A. Mauldin,
"Institutional Employee Attitudes About the Retarded"
(unpublished university of Missouri research report,
1971).

40Charles R. Mauldin, JOhn C. Sutherland and JOhn F.
Hofmeister, "The use of Attitude Segmentation in Selecting
Market Targets and Choosing a New Product Name: Application
to an Automated Teller System" (unpublished research
report presented to the Advertising Division of the
Association fOr Education in Journalism, Lansing, 1977).

41William.Stephenson, "An Image for Missouri's
Public Libraries" (unpublished university of Missouri
research report, 1962).

20

small colleges,42 dentistrY043 utilities44 and univer-

sities.45

 

42Phillip Ganz, "The Student and the Small College:
Operant Market Segmentation" (unpublished.MiOhigan State
Uhiversity.Master of Arts thesis, 1973).

43Nancy Lois Tschirhart, "Life Styles vs. Behavior
Segments: A Study of Dental Health Consumers" (unpublished
Michigan State university Master of Arts thesis, 1974).

44William.Stephenson, "Public Images of Public
Utilities," Journal of Advertising Research, (1963).

45Steven Shinn, "An Image Study of the University
of Missouri, Columbia" (unpublished university of Missouri
Master of Arts thesis, 1971).

21

11;; PROPOSED 51111131

I have already determined that play is indispensible
to a child's healthy development and that the tools of
play, toys, are a thriving business. Hence, it is the
purpose of this study to utilize Q—methodology as an
instrument for identifying attitude segments as they
relate to toys to learn ways the industry might tailor
manufacturing, marketing and communication to each seg-
ment.

I will evaluate the data in light of certain social
implications and discuss my findings in the concluding
chapter. Specifically, I am interested in whether parents
do perpetrate rigid sex role stereotypes through their
toy choices, as many feminists charge. I am also
interested in defining what criteria adults use in
selecting toys and how they differ among adults. Toward
that end, this study asks adults to indicate criteria
fOr selecting toys -- for a male child and for a female
child. Details of the methodology are explained in the
next chapter.

The usefulness of the methodology in generating
suggestions for manufacturing and marketing strategy,
themes and specific copy ideas will be examined. As

well as helping to better accommodate the needs of

22

specific segments, the data should facilitate the
improvement of communication with the groups designated
as target markets. Russel Haley has remarked that the
real payoff of segmentation research "has to do with
copy efficiencies."46 Understanding the criteria which
parents use in selecting toys and upcoming trends in
public thought are invaluable insights for creating
products and themes to capture the attention of specific

segments.

 

46Haley, "Beyond Benefit Segmentation," p. 3.

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY

The rationale for using Q-technique to identify
behavior segments was stated in Chapter I. To repeat,
Q—technique was chosen because of its successful use in
consumer behavior research and because it provides a
basis for operantly identifying attitude segments. The
term "operant" refers to the fact that the subjects
themselves define the segments, first by providing the
opinion statements that comprise the instrument and then
by performing the operations. Finally, factor analysis
of the data provides groupings of like sorts which are
independent of arbitrary decisions and expectations of

the researcher.

Selection of the Q-Sample

Subjects were chosen for in-depth interviews to
reflect a wide range of opinions about toys. They were
chosen on the basis of sex, age, marital status, occupation,

number and ages of children and religion. Included were

23

24

persons who were married with children, married and childr
less, divorced with children and single with no children.
There were additional criteria for selection that were
significantly important in that they reflected a range
of toy purchase frequency and preference, from single
individuals who may only enter the toy market once
yearly to married persons with large families who
regularly spend a considerable amount on toys. subjects
gave estimates of the number of toys purchased per child
for Christmas, birthdays, other special occasions and
non-special occasions during the year.

The interview schedule was arranged to elicit the
‘widest range of opinions from respondents. Subject
matter included an evaluation of what the individual
considered important in the toys he bought. The
characteristics that his or her child (when appropriate)
valued in a toy were also discussed. The method, places,
frequency, price range and times of year which the
individual purchases toys was discussed. Also considered
was the amount of enjoyment the person derived from buying
toys and the major influences on the person's buying
decisions as well as the preferences of his or her child

(when appropriate). Questions concerning agreement with

25

spouse on selection criteria, familiarity with toy
manufacturers and television viewing habits of his or her
child (when appropriate) were asked. Finally, the
individual was asked to compare his childhood toy
experiences with those Of his or her child (when
appropriate). an-directive interviewing techniques

were used. The questions were asked neutrally with
considerable prompting. The Object of each interview
was to exhaust the respondent's opinions about toys.

From a theoretically limitless number of statements
of opinion about toys, several hundred opinion statements
were gathered from about twenty-four interviews. No more
than twenty-four interviews were conducted, because the
interviews extracted no "new" opinions from.the last
interview, that is, with wording exceptions, the opinions
duplicated those in previous interviews.

The several hundred statements were reduced to fifty-
six, eliminating idiosyncratic statements and duplication.
The final fifty-six statements were selected on the
basis of self-reference, that is they allowed respondents
to protect their own interpretation upon them. The Q-sample
can be categorized into statements dealing with the reasons

why toys are bought (to show love, rewarding behavior,

26

pampering an ill child, for fun, to encourage creati-

vity, to develop a sense of achievement, concentration,
perseverance, to help cope with competition, etc.),
the attributes of a toy (color, durability, age considera-
tions, price, safety, research pedigree, degree of diffi-
culty, brand name manufacturer, or discarded household
items such as cans and boxes), the environment in which
toys are used (unsupervised, family participation,
organized, loose, etc.), the factors of influence in toy
selection (advertising, child's preference, agreement
with spouse, etc.), as well as other issues such as the
advantages and disadvantages of encouraging fantasy, the
use of scary toys and toys which promote violence. It was
thought that such a combination would reflect an individual's
feelings toward toys, hence aiding in the interpretation
of attitude segments (see statement set in Appendix B).
The Q-sample was pretested.by several persons of
various ages and toy purchasing experiences. After
reviewing the Q-sample with these people, the wording
of several statements was changed to clarify their

meanings.

Selection of Respondents

Quota control sampling was used in selecting the

27

respondents, the P-sample. The P-sample was classified
into selected categories thought to be relevant to
differences in feelings about toys. The P-sample
comprised the same variables as the subjects in the
depth interviews. Restated, they were: sex, age,
marital status, occupation, number and ages of children
and religion, in addition to toy purchase frequency and

preferences.

Administration of the Q:Sample

The Q—sample was administered to fifty-six persons.
Each subject was asked to perform a Q-sort (a ranking of
the statements) to describe what seemed to him to be
important or significant.

To address the issue of whether people use different
criteria to select toys for children of different sexes,
thirty-six of the respondents were asked to perform double
Q—sorts. They were requested to rank one set of state-
ments with a girl child in mind and another set with
respect to a boy child.

All the respondents placed the statements on a value
scale according to their projected interpretation of them.
First, an individual in the P-sample was asked to sort

the statements into three piles. One pile contained those

28

statements with which he agreed (+), another pile those
statements with which he disagreed (-), and a third those
statements about which he was neutral or could not make up
his mind (0). Using the Q—matrix as a guide (see Appendix
c), the respondents were asked to pick two statements with
which they most agreed, and the interviewer entered the
statement numbers in the Q-matrix under (+6) "most agree."
Subjects continued filling in the diagram with "agree"
statements until these statements were exhausted. In the
same manner the placement of the statements in the
“disagree" pile was completed.

Finally respondents were asked to choose those
statements from.the "neutral" pile with which they most
agreed and to fill in the rest of the Q—matrix until all
statements were exhausted.

The sorted statements satisfied the following

frequency distribution:

 

 

N=56 Most Disagree Most Agree
Value: -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6
Number of 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 6 5 5 4 3 2
Statement:

 

Respondents were asked to comment on their reasons for

29

placing particular statements at the -6 and +6 ends

of the continuum on the back of the questionnaire.

Analysis of the Data

The ninety-two completed Q—sorts were processed by
the Michigan State university CDC 6500 computer using the
SPSS factor analysis Subprogram and using the wrap phase
Of the QUANAL program developed at the university of
Iowa by N. Van Tubergen. The respondents' sorts were
intercorrelated to provide a correlation-matrix, which
the computer then factored using the principle-axes
method. Factors are thus obtained, made up of groups
of individuals who have sorted the statements in a sim-
ilar manner. The factors are then rotated orthogonally
through a varimax solution, to obtain mathematically a
maximum.number of "pure" loadings (significant loadings1

on one and only one factor).

The Spearman weighting formula2 was then applied to

 

1Significant factor loadings are determined by
computing the standard error for a zero correlation
coefficient: SE = l/n, where n = number of statements.
In this case. SE = 1/ V??— = .13. Thus loadings

greater than .325 (2 1/2 SE) are significant beyond
p .01.

2 . . '

Weighting is by means of Spearman's formula: -l— 2.
Charles Spearman, The Abilities of Man (New York, r
1972), Appendix XIX.

30

the factor loadings. Individual sorts for each factor
were weighted according to the factor loadings. Then
the computer added the weighted rankings across each
statement, producing an "average" sort for each factor.
After converting the arrays to zescores, the computer
arranged statements on a "most agree-most disagree"
continuum.fOr each factor. The array for each factor
provided the basis for interpretation of the factor.

The factor analysis yielded two factors judged
"interpretable," based on two criteria. One interprets
Only those factOrs with at least a minimum number of
persons with significant "pure" loadings. The number
chosen for this study was four. A third and fourth
factor was generated but did not have enough persons
to be interpretable (Factor III consisted of one person
and Factor IV consisted of two persons). The second
criterion is amount of variance accounted for, judged on
the basis of eigenvalues. using eigenvalues it is possible
to reject a factor when the amount of variance accounted
for is less than a minimum specified amount, as represented
by a designated eigenvalue. It is common for factors with
eigenvalues less than 1.000 to be judged uninterpretable

and that was the criterion used in this study. The two

31

factor solution included as "pure" loadings, the sorts of
eighty-two of the ninety-two subjects. The interpretation
of the factors was based on the statement arrays for each

factor, a result reported in the following chapter.

CHAPTER II I
INTERPRETATION

Introduction

In Q—technique, respondents sort statements into a
quasi-normal, forced-choice distribution. The scores for
each sort are correlated with all other sorts, and the
resulting correlation matrix is subjected to Q-factor
analysis. The factor analysis provides evidence used in
defining groups of persons, each group having sorted the
statements in a similar way. For each group (factor), an
array of statements is calculated using products of
weighted factor loadings and raw scores: the resulting
array of statements, a statistical representation of the
group position, is statistically compared with other arrays
to define consensus items and statistically contrasted
with other arrays to define discriminating items, those
items that differentiate a factor array from other factor
arrays.

As reported previously, two interpretable factors were
generated and examined. An "if-then" approach was used in

32

33

.interpreting the factors; combinations of statements were
examined and the apparent position was summarized.
Individual statements, groups of statements, combinations
of comparisons were studied and conclusions reached.
Admittedly, seeking these conclusions is subjective but
the interpretation must be based on the Operant evidence;
that is, the explanation offered.must fit the data. It
is the usual procedure in Q-studies to qualify the
interpretation in this manner: the reader is encouraged to
formulate his own conclusions from the data given in

the appendices.

Those statements upon which all factors basically
agree, called consensus items, received initial attention.l
Inter-factor agreement upon opinion statements can be of
great importance in improving communication with toy
consumers.

The interpretation for each factor is presented in
three forms: (1) a two word label which provides a
convenient means of referring to the factor, (2) a brief
sketch describing each factor, and (3) an extended sketch,

with evidence, furnishing a more detailed explanation and

 

lA consensus item is defined as a statement where the
factor scores differ by less than .700 standard score
across the two factors.

34

discussion of the factor. (The comments the respondents
were asked to make on the back of the questionnaire about
their reasons for placing particular statements on the
extreme (-6 and +6) ends of the continuum will be
included here.) The factor is referred to in third
person because the sort for each factor represents a

sort "typical" of the group, a sort that could have been
done by a single individual.

Finally, the results of the double sorts will be
acknowledged. To review, thirty-six of the fifty-six
respondents were asked to perform double Q—sorts to
determine if people did indeed use different criteria to
select toys for children of different sexes. They were
requested to rank one set of statements with a girl child

in mind and another set with respect to a boy child.

§£ief Sketches
As noted, the factor analysis yielded two interpret—
able factors. The brief descriptions that follow are
intended to acquaint the reader with the factors before

offering a more detailed analysis.

Factor I, The Play Purist

 

Populating Factor I are those persons best typified

35

as Play Purists. They appear to collectively view play
as an activity carried on in the spirit of sheer
exuberance and pleasure with no apparent utilitarian
Objective. They are concerned that in the anxiety to
push children forward, the joy of childhood may be
destroyed. The fact that play affords intense delight
should be significant justification in itself to

participate in that behavior, they believe.

Factor II, The Eager Educationalist

 

Eager educationalists are individuals who generally
feel that play contributes much more than pleasure to a
child's life. It creates the perfect learning situation
and it is indispensible to the growth and development of
every child. Thus, it is the responsibility of every
parent to seize all opportunities to equip the child in
the best possible way to cope with the prOblems they will
face in the future. This Objective can be initiated

through play.

£2£§2B§E§_2E§E£
Consensus items, or those statements about which all
the factors agree, are very important in a Q-study. These

statements can provide the basis for communication with

36

otherwise.diverse groups. Of most importance are those
statements scored highly positive: these statements are
not only matters of consensus, but are of high value to
the respondents. Consensus items which are scored highly
negative are also important and indicate matters to be
avoided or emphasized in communication strategy. Those
items surrounding the neutral point offer least in terms
of communication opportunity. The study yielded thirty-two
consensus items and this section examines those items.

More than one half of the statements (i.e., 32 out of
56) were held in similar regard by both factors. Six
statements were highly positive, seven slightly positive,
seven essentially neutral, eight slightly negative and
four highly negative.

The highest positive "agree" statements reflect
attitudes shared by most parents universally.

Respondents indicated that, broadly, care of the toys
was a child's responsibility (27).

(27) A child should have to take care of his toys.

It teaches him responsibility.
Factor I Factor II

1.607 1.484

It appears to me that the respondents recognize that

37

a child's first possessions are his toys. Practicing care
and respect in this area will extend to other values in
his life. Early neglectful and thoughtless behavior not
discouraged by parents can result in a socially irrespon-
sible orientation which may last a child's lifetime.

Age was rated overwhelmingly as the most important
criterion in the selection of toys as agreed on by‘both
factors (9).

(9) It's so important to consider a child's age
in selecting toys.

Factor I Factor II
.854 1.548
One 40 year old educational administrator and father
of six commented, "Toys, like books and educational
curriculum are most effective when the level of complexity
corresponds to the child's mental and chronological age.
Surely a lack of interest results if the toy is either too
difficult or simple." (Note: As a reminder, all comments
made by the respondents like the one above were found on
the back of the questionnaires. Participants were asked
to give reasons for placing particular statements on the
extreme ends of the continuum (-6 and +6).
The next consensus item acknowledges that children are

generally unpredictable at times, and their preference in

38
playthings will often mystify parents (12)..

(12) Finally, you never really know'what toy
a kid will like. A little child will some-
times ignore a new toy to play with a
baking soda can.
Factor I Factor II
1.302 .940

Apparently, more parents agree that despite the
control they may attempt to exercise over a child's
leisure, it is difficult to anticipate his whims.

The following two consensus items reflect underlying
values which are universally applauded. There was
concurrment among all respondents that parents should not
be overly generous with toys, thus teaching the child to
be satisfied with what he has (15).

(15) You can buy a child too many toys. It's
important to learn to be happy with what

you have.
Factor I Factor II
1.389 .798

Responses indicate that these persons wish to de-
emphasize materialism in their children's lives. Over-
whelming a child with toys encourages the beginning of
greed and discontent. Mereover, if a child learns to

expect an abundance of toys, he may project these

39

expectations in the future to other areas of his life.

"Kids can be given too many toys to the point that
the values of happiness and enjoyability become secondary
to possession and quantity," remarked a 27-year-old
television and radio broadcaster and father of one.

It appears that cooperation with others is another
virtue which all respondents strongly favored. They
agreed that toys for two or more children which teach
the ability to get along well with others were of benefit
(44).

(44) Games and toys for two or more children are
good: they teach kids to get along well with

others.
Factor I Factor II
.921 1.152

I have drawn the conclusion that it is the commonly
held opinion that unless a child.has some interaction and
shares his toys he may tend to become overly possessive
and competitive.

The highest positive agree statement concerns the
notion that children should have a voice in toy purchase

decisions (25).

40

(25) Kids should have some say so in the types

of toys his parents buy for him.
Factor I Factor II
1.269 .758

Said a father of a 6 year Old in elaboration, "A
child is an individual with his own preferences. A
parent can only attempt to guide or suggest: the final
decision belongs to the child."

Slightly positive regard was indicated for games
which assist the parent in developing a good relationship
with their child (26) and board games which promote family
participation (51).

(26) I like games that allow you to build a good

relationship with your child.

Factor I Factor II
.820 1.072

(51) Board games are a family affair. We can all
sit down and have fun together.

Factor I Factor II
.409 .277
Apparently, all respondents believe that shared
experiences in entertainment can nurture strong attach-
ments. Leisure activities engender pleasant memories and
those associated with the family help provide the child
*with an important base of trust and security.

"It is important for a child to identify positively

41

‘with the parents and games allow that identification to
occur," Observed a 25-year-old secretary.

As stated earlier all respondents concurred that
the child's preference should be taken into account when
making toy selections (25). Conversely, parents also
believe the toy must meet the parent's own criteria of
acceptability too (46).

(46) I buy toys that my child likes, but they also
must meet my own criteria of acceptability.

Factor I Factor II
.836 .868

This suggests that respondents view toy buying as a
joint decision between parent and child. An adult's
guidance is often necessary to assess the safety and
durability of the item, while the child may contribute
to the choice of the general toy category.

In line with this, parents loOk for durability and
breakage resistance in a toy (48).

(48) I look for durability in a toy. If it isn't
sturdy, it will get torn up in a hurry.

Factor I Factor II
.542 .665

It is apparent that today's soaring prices have
forced consumers to be value conscious.

Commented a 27-year-old professor and father of two,

42

"Toys are becoming a larger investment than ever, and on
my salary, durability is a must."
Nbvelty and creativity were broadly acknowledged as

favorable toy attributes (24).

(24) I like a toy that is a novel creative idea.
Factor I Factor II
.663 , .858

It is my opinion that respondents feel that novelty
provokes curiosity and stimulates the imagination.

In conjunction with the preceding statement, respond-
ents wanted a toy that maintains a child's interest because
most children tire of a toy before it has lost its useful-
ness (20).

(20) It would be nice to have toys that kids continue
to have fun with. Usually, children get tired
of toys long before they wear out.

Factor I Factor II
.704 .533

Parents are concerned that many serviceable toys are
neglected because the child has become indifferent to
them. Thus, the greater the novelty and creative impact
the toy has on the child initially, the greater the likeli—

hood of prolonging his interest in the toy.

43

The last of the mildly positive statements concerns
avoidance of high violence toys with the reasoning that
there is enough violence in the world without encouraging
violent play (43).

(43) I avoid toy guns and other toys with a high
violence potential. We have enough violence
in the world without encouraging children to
play violence.

Factor I Factor II
.699 .528

I speculate that respondents feel that their children
are exposed to too much violence in the media. Toys which
promote potentially violent play teach a child to believe
that this type of behavior is acceptable in other inter-
actions.

A 24-year-Old woman school teacher asserted, “Kids
should learn to express themselves in a non-violent way,
particularly in the case of a boy who is usually expected
to be very physical and aggressive.“

Reflecting a basically neutral stance is the notion
that respondents buy toys for their children that they
would like if they were a child (14).

(14) I buy toys for my children that I'd like if I

‘were a child.

Factor I Factor II
.671 -.001

44

Relative to other issues, the statement concerning
‘the need to exercise caution because some toymakers try to
make a sale regardless of safety, did not command much

interest (31).

(31) ‘You have to be careful buying toys. Many toy
makers will produce anything that will sell
regardless of safety and potential harmful

uses.
Factor I Factor II
.111 .457

It appears that respondents feel that enough reputable
toymakers offer quality products to generate little atten-
tion for those who don't.

A 25-year-Old beautician and mother of a 2 year old
elaborated, "There are many products available by reputable
manufacturers, i.e., Fisher Price, so that I can avoid
unsafe products."

The statement dealing with the value of toys which get

children outside (42) elicited a relatively neutral response.

(42) I like toys that get children out-Of-doors.
Factor I Factor II
.389 -0016

I surmise that respondents believe toys for the

out-Of-doors are beneficial for the fresh air and exercise

45

.they provide but they are reluctant to endorse these toys
completely because the opportunity to share in the child's
leisure is lacking.
Respondents expressed indifference to the matter of
purchasing toys with working parts so that the child
must think a little (55).
(55) I like to buy toys that have working parts so
the child.has to think a little.
Factor I Factor II
-.095 .425
This suggests a rivalry Of thought to me creditable
to the availability of some toys with working parts that
do stimulate the child's interest versus others that may
be so highly mechanized that they leave little to the
child's imagination.
The issue of both parents agreeing on the proper
criteria in toy selection received a neutral reaction (32).
(32) Both parents should agree on the right criteria
for selecting toys for their children.
Factor I Factor II
-.063 .314
Respondents may feel that though consistency is

important in a child's life in general, consistency in

46

toybuying criteria does not merit undue concern.
Respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they
prefer toys which are useful at keeping children enter-
tained and."out of adult hair" (40).
(40) Toys serve the useful purpose sometimes of
keeping kids entertained and out of adult hair.
Factor I Factor II

-.101 -.O67

Apparently, they are lukewarm to the idea of using
toys as pacifiers.
Indifference was demonstrated for the idea that it is

nice to give a child a toy when he was ill (28).

(28) It's nice to buy a toy for a child when he is

ill.
Factor I Factor II
-.338 .108

Respondents may feel that this sort of practice is
bordering on using toys as a system of rewards and.punish-
ments for good and poor conduct. However,illness cannot
be defined as a behavior chosen by the child, hence, the
less than completely negative reaction.

The last neutral statement proposed that toys should

be bright and colorful (36).

47

(36) Toys should be bright and colorful.
Factor I Factor II
-.328 .047

I suspect that respondents may believe that any one
toy attribute generalized to be included in all toys
can not guarantee the child's enjoyment.

"Of primary importance is that toys should be useful
to a child. It might be pretty but if he can't use it,
it's not valuable," asserted a 28-year-old teacher and
father of two. .

Respondents disagreed with statement (5). This
statement dealt with the idea that toys should promote
competition with other children for the purpose of
developing coping skills to survive competition in the

future.

(5) There should be competition with other children.
Competition is important. Children have to learn
to cope with it to survive later.

Factor I Factor II
-.686 -.601

Again, it appears to me that all respondents are in
favor of fostering cooperation as opposed to competition.
Supporting this argument, a 37-year-old professor and

father of three stated, "There is entirely too much

48

competition and not enough team work. This applies to both
individuals and nations."

MOreover, a 30-yeareold manager of a business and
father of two said, "Competition is stressed too heavily
in a children's world as it is. They have to battle it
out academically and athletically already."

The negative consensus about toys that can be used
‘without parental participation (16) relates to the two
earlier statements of positive agreement about toys which
promote family-centered activities (26), (51).

(16) I prefer toys my child can play without my

help or participation.

Factor I Factor II

-.475 ‘-.671
Again, I believe that all respondents feel that shared
recreation engenders family unity.

A 27-year-old student and father of two remarked, "An
opportunity to strengthen the parent-child relationship is
lost. I also want to partly control what my child learns."

General disagreement was indicated for the viewpoint
that advertising has such an impact that parents usually

end up satisfying the want it creates (23).

49

(23) Advertising is the big thing. If ads create
a big enough want in children, the parents
usually end up satisfying that want.

Factor I Factor II
-.916 -.311

I speculate that respondents protest the suggestion
that advertisements actually dictate toy purchase choices.
Though media have some influence in this area, the respondent
would like to feel that he has made his decisions based on
his own judgement.

A 27-year-old engineer with no children observed,
"Advertising may or may not create the want. The parents,
however, pay for the toy; therefore, they will decide wlat
toy will be bought."

Purchasing only toys the parent thinks his child
would like (19) elicited a negative reaction.

(19) The parent should buy only toys that he thinks

his child would like.
Factor I Factor II
-.771 -.783

The disagreement suggests that people believe they
should sometimes give a child a toy he/she doesn't like,
presumably, a toy to serve another purpose. A toy could
be used to introduce a child to a new experience he has

never tried.but thought he didn't like; for instance,

50

coOking for boys.
General disagreement was indicated for the statement

that a toy should be simple and uncomplicated (49).

(49) A toy should be simple and uncomplicated.
Factor I Factor II
-.686 -.601

Examination of this statement in the context of the
others in the array and the corresponding statement
elaborations has lead me to believe that respondents beg
to differ with the use of the words "simple and uncompli-
cated." .

Simplicity and lack of complication does not
necessarily guarantee a good toy and statement (49)
extends this generalization to all toys. Also it is not un-
common for a child to lose interest in a toy if it does not
challenge him sufficiently.

"For an 8-year-old child, a toy should be stimulating.
That's not to say that it has to be complicated, of course,
but the phrase 'simple and uncomplicated} makes me thinkof
a shoelace," said a 23-year—old unmarried kindergarten
teacher.

The statement dealing with the view that there are

no safe toys and, even though a ball is not generally

51

thought of as dangerous, it can be unsafe if lying on the
stairway (38), was met with opposition.

(38) There is no such thing as a safe toy. A
ball lying on stairway is unsafe, but it is
not a 'dangerous' toy.

Factor I Factor II
-.881 -.472

It appears to me that respondents may be rejecting~
this statement because of its blind generalization that
all toys are unsafe. If we were to be completely correct,
it would be more appropriate to Observe that although
many objects may not appear potentially dangerous, any
object can.be termed 'unsafe' is misused, as would'be the
case fer any toy.

Consensus disagreement was expressed with the notion
of using price as an important value in toy purchase
decisions (22).

(22) Price plays an important role in the choice

of toys for my children.
Factor I Factor II
-.771 -.783

I suspect that respondents disregard price as a

measure of the child's enjoyment and the utility of the toy.

A 28-year-old teacher and father of a 3-year-old and

52

6-year-old commented, "It really doesn't matter what the
price is as long as my child is entertained and enjoys
the toy. I get a great deal of satisfaction seeing my
child play with a toy that he likes."

Respondents strongly contested the statement dealing
with toys that have batteries and move (8).

(8) I like toys with batteries. They move. They

gg_something.
Factor I Factor II
-1.539 -l.223

It is my opinion that the subjects believe that a
mechanized toy only allows Observation and not self
expression through manipulation.

Another explanation for the apparent reluctance to
purchase toys with batteries may be because batteries soon
run down and the time required for maintenance, though
minimal, may not be worthwhile to the parent.

A 24-year-old secretary and.mother of a 4-year-old
asserted, "A toy that does everything leaves nothing to the
imagination.“

In the same vein, an unmarried 20—year-old female
cashier remarked, "A child should animate the toy himself,

not artificially. Then too, batteries usually run down

53

and the toy is forgotten."

A firm consensus of disagreement was voiced for the
idea that giving toys was nothing more than a way of showing
love and affection (1).

(1) Giving toys is nothing more than a way of showing

love and affection.
Factor I Factor II
-l.708 -1.437

With reflection upon other statements in the array
and the accompanying remarks, it is my conclusion that
respondents feel that toys as gifts are much more than a
display of love and affection. Toys are a major part of
a child's early years. A body of parents believe toys are
instrumental in aiding children with the development of
mental and mechanical skills. Beyond its simple value as
a gift, a toy stimulates a child's imagination and
indoctrinates him.into functioning within a social system
when he must share his playthings with others.

In a different vein some respondents apparently feel
that use of any inanimate Object only to demonstrate love
is artificial and distant. A 30-year-old student and
mother of a 7-year-old girl said, "Giving toys only to

show love is a bit narrow and signifies to me that there

54

is a lack of communication between parent and child."

A 32-year-old housewife and mother of 3 added, A
"Sometimes giving toys is a compensation for the lack of
showing love and affection."

"It's a lot more than showing the kid I love him. I
do it out of love, not just to show him," concluded a
23-year-old law student and father of a 3-year-old.

The next strongly negative consensus statement takes
argument with the notion of being against organized or
structured play (2).

(2) I'm not against organized or structured play.

Factor I Factor II
-l.431 - -l.813

It appears that respondents may believe that life's
situations have an inherent rule structure and to function
satisfactorily within that system one must adhere to some
minimal form.of organization or chaos will result. Cooper-
ation is an essential coping skill today and structured
play fosters development of that skill. Some degree of
organization does not stifle creativity but directs it.

A 31-year-old high school teacher and mother of two
offered, "I'm not against structure per se. It's not bad
because all play has structure. I'd‘be against restraints."

The final statement receiving a reaction of strong

55

disagreement concerned the necessity for children to

differentiate between reality and fantasy when playing (3).

(3) When playing, a child should have to differen-
tiate between real life and what is fun or

silly.
Factor I Factor II

I will venture to guess that respondents may feel
that childhood is brief enough without imposing maturity
upon the child too soon. Children learn to differentiate
between reality and fantasy readily enough without forcing
it prematurely.

"They will have enough time to learn about the real
world. Kids should enjoy childhood because it doesn't
last forever," comments a 37-year-old professor and father

of three.
Factor II The Play Pugist

Evidence for Sketch

Factor I, the Play Purist, is comprised of eight
individuals, including six women (three single and three
married), and two men (two married). Ages of the respon-
dents ranged from 22 to 32 years, the average age being
26.0 years.

The average number of children of Factor I (determined

56

by taking the average number of children of all married
couples) is 2.5. The ages of the married respondent's
children ranged from 15 to 6 with the average age
calculated at 10.3 years.

Occupations included three clerk/cashiers, two
teachers, two college students, and one production control
supervisor.

Religious affiliations included four Catholics, two
Protestants, one atheist and one "no response."

Toy selection data and background data indicated that
respondents constituting Factor I purchase an average of 3
toys for Christmas, 1 toy for birthdays, no toys for special
occasions and 1 toy for non-special occasions.

Following is a detailed analysis of the discriminating
statement array as generated by members of the Play Purist
factor based upon the value they placed on certain items
in the Q-sort. Included are those statements with which
they agreed more than any other factor agreed, (i.e.,
positive discriminating items) and those statements with
which they disagreed, (i.e., negative discriminating items).
In addition, supporting comments made by factor members
concerning statements of particular interest to them are

offered where appropriate.

57

The statement which Factor I reacted to most strongly
concerns the notion that a toy's primary value lies in its

ability to provide fun and laughter for his or her child

 

 

(33) .

Factor I Factor II Difference
Statement Z-Score Z-Score pjz-Z)
(33)
The main purpose of a 1.417 «n183 1.600

toy or game is to help
my child have fun and to
laugh.

With investigation of other statements in the array
and their elaborating comments, it is my conclusion that
Play Purists feel entertainment and enjoyment are play-
time's fundamental purposes. Learning and education, of
course, have their utility but their importance in play is
secondary to fun and amusement.

The statement these respondents most firmly stand in
opposition to deals with the belief that it is necessary
for a child to differentiate between reality and fantasy
in playtime (3).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

 

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (g-Z)
(3)
When playing, a child -2.024 -1.469 -.556

should have to differ-
entiate between what is
real life and what is fun
or silly.

58

It is my opinion that this response is further
indicative of the Play Purist's position on the purpose
of play. Children grow up soon enough and they should
be free to enjoy childhood for as long as they are able.
The ability to perceive differences between fantasy and
reality occurs readily without fOrcing it prematurely.

A 26-year-old married man employed as a television
and radio sportscaster commented, "Part of the joy of
childhood is not having to deal with this differentiation
all the time."

The statement which dealt with fantasy as very
healthy and worthy of encouragement (4) elicited a strong

positive reaction from Factor I.

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score z-Score p(§-z)
(4)
A child needs a certain 1.938 .880 1.058

amount of make-believe,
and fantasy play should
be encouraged.

I think respondents may feel that make-believe fosters
mental growth and creativity. Further, pretending develops
a child's imagination and personality. In role playing,

a child can experience alternative careers and lifestyles

and discover which ones appeal to him as an individual.

59

"Fantasy is essential," said a 25-year-old teacher
‘with no children. "Too often, male children feel
pressured to fit into the stereotyped masculine role and
repress expression. Make-believe allows release."

A 27-year-old sportscaster and father of one speculated,
"The wandering, free thinking young of today may be the
geniuses of tomorrow."

The Play Purist indicated a favorable attitude toward
the view that children learn from.every situation whether

structured or make—believe (50).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (z-Z)
(50) '
Kids learn from almost 2.490 .570 1.919

everything. It doesn't
matter that much whether
the game is structured or
make-believe.

I speculate that Factor I has very definite ideas
about the process of learning and the function of structure
in playtime. Children are very impressionable and most
experiences can.be expected to have some impact on them.
Moreover, learning and laughter are not incongruent. Some

of the most effective lessons are taught with some degree

of humor and fantasy.

60

A 37-year-old professor and father of three remarked,
"My little ones take great pleasure in playing imaginatively
with pots and pans while becoming familiar with the con-
cepts of size and shape."

A strong opposition was raised to the suggestion of
the introduction of structure to a child's environment

before the child is 5 (17).

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(17)
I don't like structured -.234 -1.541 1.307

learning for kids under
5 years. The child
gets enough of that
when he starts school.

It is my estimation that Factor I may believe that
too soon schools and other institutions put limits on a
child's creativity. Children under 5 years old should
have the freedom to indulge in any form of play.
Structure sometimes inhibits imagination, so fantasy
should be unrestrained at this early age.

The Play Purist firmly rejected the view that the
best toys are constructed to foster concentration and

perseverance (54). Further defining their standards

for choosing toys, the Play Purist expressed the sentiment

61

that a toy beyond a child's ability was not challenging

but frustrating (52).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(54)
A good toy can give a -.068 1.701 -1.769

child a sense of

achievement and develop

concentration and per-

severance.

(52)

A toy should provide a -.287 1.157 -l.443
challenge to the child's

intelligence.

It appears to me that Factor I may feel strongly
that playtime is not meant to be an effort but a pleasure.
Thus, the amount of entertainment a toy may generate is
the true assessment of its value.

A 26-year-old married childless woman student commented,
“Children should be able to enjoy their toys and not have to
work at play."

In further support of this notion is the strongly
positive reaction elicited by statement (34) dealing
‘with the view that it is important that a child's toys

should not be too difficult so he can experience success

easily. ’

62

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

 

Statement Z-Score z-Score (z-Z)
(34)
It's important for kids 1.135 .320 .815

to experience success.
Therefore toys should
not be too difficult
for the child.

I assume that respondents believe that a healthy
self concept is essential to a child's emotional develop-
ment. Toys which engender the satisfaction of accomplish-
ment can especially enhance the growth of a child's
positive attitude toward.himself.

"Andrea is not as bright as some children her age.
She needs to be encouraged and is easily defeated. If I
were buying for her, making sure the toy was not too
difficult would be extremely important. It makes her so
happy when she succeeds," offers a 22-year-old unmarried
student in reference to her 6-year-old niece.

Play Purists favored the statement which suggested

that the child's use of manufactured toys be limited so

he learns to create with his natural environment (7).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score 12-2)
(7)
The child shouldn't have 1.348 -.187 1.534

many manufactured toys

so that he learns to
create out of his natural
surroundings.

63

I think that Play Purists feel that manufactured
toys have no inherent creativity. When the child can
not contribute changes to suit his own ideas, the
possibility fOr self expression is lacking.

In the same vein, Factor I has agreed that manu-
factured toys backed by research (in respect to safety
considerations and the child's needs) can not be labeled

ultimately as best toys (47).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

 

Statement z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(47)
A good toy is backed -l.054 .938 -l.992

up by research as to
what children need
and what is safe for
them.
It is my opinion that Play Purists believe that because
a toy has been tested in a laboratory setting, this does not
guarantee that it will appeal to a child in real life.
Reported a 37-year-old professor and father of three,
“My own experience has shown that most often my son is more
interested in the wrapping paper at Christmas than the toys
he gets.”

Factor I expressed an adverse reaction to toys that

are mechanized and move or walk (35)

64

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(35)
I prefer to give my -l.867 -1.014 -.883

children toys that g9
something-that move or
walk or something.

I will venture to guess that it is a commonly held
opinion that a toy which performs everything leaves little
to the child's imagination; that it's better to allow the
child to manipulate the toy himself than to simply Observe.

Play Purists voiced strong opposition to the notions
of toys which required construction (21) and toys which

have many parts to put together (41).

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(21)

I like toys that -.006 1.264 -1.270
children construct. -

They can‘be proud of

it as a finished

product.

(41)

I like to buy toys that -.871 .366 -l.237
have parts to put

together.

I suspect that the general feeling present here is
that such toys most often necessitate parental supervision

and when an adult is not present the child can not enjoy

65

the toy. Many instructions may be beyond the child's
comprehension. A child will become impatient or ignore
the directions entirely and put aside the toy out of
discouragement.

Factor I indicated agreement with the statement
concerning the fact that the day of the dollar gift is
gone and it is relatively easy to spend two dollars on a

toy purchase today (30) .

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(30)
Anybody will spend -.057 -1.474 1.037

$2.00 for a toy these
days. The day of the
dollar gift is gone.

It appears to me that the Play Purists may be
dissatisfied that playtime has become so commercialized.
Inexpensive gifts such as balls and blocks can no longer
be bought for under $2.00. Instead, highly advertised
elaborate constructions are popular today. They may lay
the blame fOr high prices at the feet of big name manu-
facturers who only have an interest in making a profit.

Commented a 37-year-old professor and father of three,
"This has been my experience with American industry-- toy-

makers or otherwise. Making a profit is the prime motive.‘

66

Play Purists heartily agreed with avoiding toys with.

a high violence potential (43).

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (z-z)
(43)
I avoid toy guns and .699 .528 .171

other toys with high
violence potential.
we‘have enough violence
in the world without
encouraging children
to play violence.

It is my guess that Factor I believes that playtime
Should be a pleasurable departure from reality's cares
‘without contaminating it with violence.

A 25-year-old woman third grade teacher remarked,

"Kids should learn to express themselves in a non-violent
manner with particular attention to male children who are
expected to be physical and aggressive."

"Many adults never grew up beyond associating violence
with play and do not fully understand the seriousness of the
disorder they perpetrate," asserted a 37-year-old professor
and father of three.

Factor I strongly disagreed with the idea of rewarding

a child when he behaves (29).

67
Factor I Factor II Difference
Statement Z-Score Z-Score (z-Z)
(29)
I sometimes reward my -2.364 -.786 -l.578
child with a toy when
he‘behaves.

I will speculate that Factor I may feel that a child
should learn to control his behavior because he realizes
that poor conduct is inappropriate, not because he expects
a gift. Further, it seems to be the general sentiment that
persons who practice this type of conditioning are shirking
their responsibility as parents to properly discipline the
child.

"Rewarding a child with a toy when he behaves shows a
child that 'behaving' is extraordinary' when in reality
it should be ordinary," commented a 23-year-old production
control supervisor with no children.

A 22-year-old unmarried woman student added, "I think
rewarding a child with a toy for being good is an easy out
for the parent."

Strong agreement was voiced for the statement dealing

'with allowing Ohildren to participate in toy purchase

decisions (25).

68

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score ;(z-z)p
(25)
Kids should have some -l.269 .758 .510

say-so in the types of
toys his parents buy for
him.
It seems reasonable to suggest that respondents feel

simply that children are individuals and entitled to culti-

vate their own tastes and Opinions.
Fac II e Ea e Educationalist

Evidence for Sketch

Factor II, the Eager Educationalist, is comprised of
seventy-four individuals including fifty-five women (ten
single, forty-one married, three divorced and one "no
response“) and nineteen men (two single, sixteen married
and one ino response"). Ages of the respondents ranged
from 20 to 75 years, the average age being 27.7 years.

The average number of children of Factor II (deter-
mined by taking the average number of children of all
married and divorced persons) is 2.5. The ages of the
married and divorced respondent's children ranged from two
months to twenty-three years with the average age calculated

at two years and eight months.

69

Occupations included sixteen housewives, thirteen
students, twelve teachers, five secretaries, four news-
casters, two professors, two engineers, two beauticians,
two public information analysts, two speech therapists,
two computer operators, two business managers, two
registered nurses, two educational administrators, one
cashier, one bank clerk, one retiree, one production
control supervisor, and two "no responses."

Religious affiliations constituted twenty Catholics,
sixteen Protestants, fifteen Atheists, four Methodists,
four Lutherans, three Presbyterians, two Greek Orthodox,
two agnostics, two Episcopalians, two Christians, one
Mbrmon, one Jew and one Moslem.

Toy selection and consumption behavioral background
data revealed that respondents composing Factor II purchase
an average of four toys fOr Christmas, two for birthdays,
one toy for special occasions and three toys for non-special
occasions.

The following is a detailed analysis of the discrimi-
nating statements array based upon the values Eager
Educationalists placed on certain items in the Q-sort.
Included are those statements with which they agreed on

more than any other factor agreed (i.e., positive

7O

discriminating items) and those statements with which they
disagreed (i.e., negative discriminating items). In
addition, supporting comments made by factor members
concerning statements of particular interest to them are
offered when appropriate.

Factor II most strongly agrees with the statement that
a child's playtime is a valuable opportunity to encourage

thinking and should not be wasted on meaningless activity

 

(56).

Factor I Factor II Difference
Statement Z-Score Z-Score (z-Z)
(56)
I want my child to have -.018 1.499 -1.517

toys that will help him
think constructively,
not just pass time.

It is my impression that the Eager Educationalist
entertains the attitude that a child is never too young to
learn. The impressionable years of childhood would be
squandered if parents were not alert to occasions when
knowledge could be introduced to their son or daughter.
Enjoyment may be a pleasurable by-product of the toy but
its ability to develop a child's mental or physical
dexterity is a toy's primary function.

A 27-year-old father commented, "A child's mind is

71

very bright and inquisitive. They are constantly groping.
for stimulation. My 4-year-old daughter can learn many
mechanical skills used in dressing when she plays with a
doll that has buttons, zippers, snaps, ties and‘buckles."
Conversely, the statement the Eager Educationalist
most strongly agreed with, dealt again with this factor's
concept of play. They heartily defend the notion of

structured or organized play (2).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score 12-2)
(2)

I'm against organized -l.431 -1.813 .382
or structured kinds of

play.

After examination of a number of comments concerning
this notion, I conclude that these persons in general believe
that all play must be organized. Organization fosters coop-
eration and without this element chaos ensues. Successful
adjustment is based on one's ability to adapt to the
structure of the circumstance. Some internalization of
discipline prepares the child for the future.

“The real world is structured. Without previous
structure in his environment the transition to structure

could be disturbing for a child," said a 23-year-old mother

72

of one.

Thus, it seems apparent that Factor II holds that play-
time should have a purpose. Further demonstrating this
theme are the statements the Eager Educationalist favored
strongly in defining criteria for a good toy. Toys which
provided a challenge to a child's intelligence (52) and
encouraged a sense of achievement, concentration and per-

severance (54) were most highly regarded.

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statements g-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(52)
A toy should provide -.287 1.157 -l.443

a challenge to the
child's intelligence.

(54)

A good toy can give -.068 1.701 -l.769
a child a sense of

achievement and develop

concentration and

perseverence.

It is my opinion that Factor II subscribes to the notion
that toys can effectively contribute to a child's healthy
self concept. A challenging toy promotes experience in
prOblem-solving and imparts a spirit of accomplishment
when the activity is successful.

"It is important to me that my child experiences

gratification in a play situation. A good toy offers

73

a constructive endeavor which yields a sense of pride when
completed," said a father of one in response to statements
(52) and (54).

In line with challenging a child's intelligence, it
appears that Factor II believes that novelty and creativity

in a toy is beneficial (24).

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(24)
I like a toy that's .663 .858 -.194

a novel, creative idea.

I think that the Eager Educationalist views novelty as
stimulating to the imagination and an encouragement to
creative thought.

Statements which dealt with toy safety also elicited
a strong reaction from the Eager Educationalist. Good
toys were further defined as those backed by research
regarding the child's needs and safety (47). In addition,
it was inferred.that safety was one of the single most

important criteria in this factor's toy purchase decisions

(37).

Factor I Factor II Difference
Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(47)
A good toy is backed by -1.054 .938 -1.992

research as to what
children need and what
is safe for them.

74

Factor I FactOr II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score ((21%)
(37)
Most toys are safe -.596 -2.009 1.413

enoug , and that
usually isn't an
important part of
my buying decision.

After investigating the explanations that accompanied these
statements it is my Observation that those individuals which
comprise Factor II check their child's environment carefully
fOr any safety hazards. Children, particularly the very young,
cannot readily recognize danger. A toy is manipulated.by a
child in every way and the consequences of it being brOken
must be assessed. Moreover, it appears that Factor II places
confidence, for the most part, in the results of toy research.
Research is responsible for safety attributes such as flmme
retardance, electric shock resistance, fireproofing, shatter-
proofing and a host of other factors. The Eager Educationalist
may regret that he is not always available to supervise his
child's playtime and thus seeks toys for which he can be assured
that all precautions have been taken to prevent injury.

It appears that this factor also expresses trust in research's
ability to match their child's needs with an appropriate toy.
Said a 27-year-old father of two, ages 4% and 2, "I am.a firm

believer in behavioral science researc ."

In conjunction with Factor II's opinion on the validity of

75

research in toy manufacturing, is their apparent support of
age consideration in selecting toys (9).

Factor I Factor II Difference

S atement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(9)
It's so important to .854 1.548 -.693

consider a child's age
in selecting toys.

I have gathered from the evidence that Factor II feels
strongly that the degree of difficulty of a toy must correspond
'with a child's age and ability. If the child's mental or
chronological age is not apprOpriate to the complexity of the
toy, it will be abandoned out of boredom or frustration.

Several respondents expressed appreciation for toy manu-
facturers who label their products according to age differenti-
ation. A 23-year-old law student and father of a 3-year-old
commented, "I enjoy reading the information on toy packages
which are suitable for Sammie's age."

Members of Factor II defended the ability of educational
toys to stimulate creativity beyond its original purpose (10).

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(10)
Most educational toys -.658 -1.829 1.172

are good for a single

purpose. Consequently,
they stifle a child's

creativity.

76

In my assessment, the Eager Educationalist believes
that although an educational toy is usually designed to
develop a particular skill, a child's creativity is still
stimulated with any new experience.

A 25-year-old third grade woman teacher offers,
“Fisher Price has a work bench and tool toy to pound
stakes through to develop dexterity. But a child can also
imagine she is someone else (such as a worker) while she is
using it."

The Eager Educationalist appeared to trust the toy
industry in general. There was consensus disagreement
with the statements that good toys were difficult to
locate (11) and that toy advertisements played no part
in their purchase decisions (18). Further, their
orientation to toy manufacturers contrasted with the
statement that a childshould have few'manufactured
toys and instead should be encouraged to create with

his natural environment (7).

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(11)
It's hard for me to find .048 -1.531 1.579

good toys for my chil-
dren.

77

(18)

When it comes to toys, -.437 -1.474 1.037
I am immune to adver-

tising.

(7)

The child shouldn't 1.348 -.l87 1.534

have many manufactured
toys so he can learn to
create out of his
natural surroundings.

I have concluded that Factor II feels comfortable that
highly advertised.brands offer greater assurance of quality
and durability. A reputable manufacturer must stand.behind
his product or he will soon lose public confidence. Man-
ufactured toys also advertise discoveries of new concepts
which open up avenues that 'natural' toys could not hope
to tap.

"I am always receptive to toy ads. It is my responsib-
ility as a parent to be alert to every opportunity to advance
which I can give my child,“ commented a 25-year-old housewife
and.mother of one.

Broadly, the toy purchase decision of Factor II
individuals reflects the judgement of the adult, although

the child's preference does not go without consideration

(46).

78

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (Z-Z)
(46)
I buy toys that my .836 .868 -.032

child likes but they
must also meet my own
criteria of accept-
ability.

The Eager Educationalist believes that although a
child is entitled to his own tastes, a parent's guidance
is necessary. Many youngsters cannot assess a toy's
relative quality and safety.

Factor II expressed disagreement with the statement

that toys with numerous parts are an annoyance for the

parent because they require picking up after the child (39).

Factor I Factor II Difference

Statement Z-Scoge Z-Score (Z-Z)
(39)
A toy that has too .211 -.935 1.146

many pieces can turn into
a pain in the neck for
the parent, especially
when it comes to 'pick-
up' time.
Apparently, Factor II views some picking up after
the child as simply one aspect of being a parent. Addition-
ally, a child will often be fascinated by a toy with many

pieces and a gradual assignment of toy maintenance to the

79

child can foster a sense of responsibility.
General disagreement was indicated for the notion
that people who do not buy 'scary' toys forget that it

is fun to be frightened‘when not really in danger.

Factor I Factor II Difference

 

Statement Z-Score Z-Score (z-Z)
(45)
People who won't buy -.l92 -1.439 1.248

their child a scary toy
forget how'much fun it
is to be scared- when
you know you're not
really in danger.

Judging from numerous comments, Factor II holds that
small children cannot differentiate between pleasurable
fear and danger. At an age when insecurity is a common
emotion, fear is not entertainment for.a child.

One 30-year-old man, a business manager and father of
two, said, "Net only is fear not enjoyable, but children
should learn that scaring others is not a desirable

behavior."

The Double Q:Sorts

The results of the double Q-Sorts (thirty-six of the
fifty-six respondents were asked to perform double sorts

to determine if people did indeed use different criteria

80

to select toys for children of different sexes) are as
follows: a total of three persons were found to subscribe
to the conditions of Factor I in selecting toys for girl
children and simultaneously the conditions of Factor II for
selecting toys for boy children. One individual reacted
in the opposite manner. The implications of this informa-

tion will be dealt with in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS

Theoretical Implications

This study sought to divide toy consumers into segments
on the basis of attitudes. It was found that when confronted
'with a toy purchase decision, consumers reacted differently.
Two segments were differentiated on the basis of attitudes.
Of course, while there could be more than two such groups, .
the number of these attitude segments is not unlimited.

The identification of these attitude segments was the
first Objective of this study, the second being to analyze
the usefulness of the information in terms of theoretical
and practical implications. Implications for the theory
cover broad areas of application, while practical implica-
tions have specific application to the attitude segments.

As cited in the previous chapter, a total of three
persons were found to subscribe to the conditions Factor
I used in selecting toys for girl children and simultan-
eously the conditions Factor II used for selecting toys

for boy children. One individual reacted in the opposite

81

82

manner. There were a possible thirty-six persons who each
completed one sort while having a girl child in mind and

one sort specific to a boy child. These four irregularities
suggest a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the charges
made by feminists that parents perpetrate sex role stereo-
typing and telegraph their prejudices and preconceptions

with their toy selections.

Pogrebin makes reference to the "20th century
preoccupation with normality" as respOnsible for the
vigorous discrimination between the two sexes and the
necessity to label what each must do and.become.l
Further, she points to the common notion that girls
receive aesthetically oriented toys such as dolls,
paints and jewelry for gifts and'boys receive gifts of a
more educational nature such as chemistry kits and erector

sets.2

Contrary to these assumptions, the majority of the
double sorts (respondents sorted one set of statements
specific to a girl child and one set specific to a boy
child) were clustered on Factor II, the educational seg-

ment. Thus, minimal differentiation was detected in

 

1 "Toys For Free Children, " P- 415

2 "Down With Sexist Upbringing, " p. 164.

83

selecting toys for both sexes. For the most part, individ-
uals chose toys of an educational orientation for both boy
and girl children.

However, before drawing the conclusion that no sexism
in toy purchasing exists in the population in general, one
must note that the design of the study prevents such
generalization. Quota control sampling was used in
selecting the respondents, the P-sample. The P-sample
‘was classified into selected categories thought to be
relevant to differences in feelings about toys. Partici-
pants all resided in the university town of East Lansing.
Hence, a considerable number of the respondents had some
direct (student or professor) or indirect contact (spouse
of student or faculty member) with the university. The
average age of the respondents was young in comparison
‘with the general population. These two variables,
youth and exposure to a university atmosphere, may
account for some degree of "enlightenment“ among
respondents in sex role stereotyping in toys for chil-
dren. ‘

Second, it is interesting to note that out of a
possible eighty-two sorts (ranking of statements), seventy-

four of those were clustered on Factor II, the educationally

84

oriented segment. It was concluded that these individuals
generally feel that play creates the perfect learning situation
and it is indispensible to the growth and development of'every
child. They believe play can teach a child how to cope with
the prOblems he will face in the future and it is the respons-
ibility of the parent to exploit every opportunity to do so.
Hence, this evidence does lend support to the claim.made
by Dr. R. Feinbloom and Dr. P. wolff that parents are likely
to consider themselves negligent if they do not take every
possible advantage in increasing their child's intellect.3
In further agreement with Dr. Feinbloom, if these results
are generalizable to the population, it is apparent that
our society places considerable value on academic achievement
in light of its financial and social rewards. Mereover,
many persons seem to be in favor of encouraging intellectual
competition as early in the child's life as possible.
Again, a qualification must be noted here in reference
to the design of the study. As stated previously, quota
control sampling was used in selecting the respondents and
all participants resided in the university town of East

Lansing. Thus, a great majority of the P-sample had direct

 

3Wolff and Feinbloom, p. 999.

85

or indirect exposure to the university atmosphere, which
may account to some minor degree for the concern with early

intellectual development.

Practical Implications

From the interpretation of the factors practical
implications may be drawn. Certainly one of the most
important implications of this research is that it gives
the toy industry a new manner in which toloOk at consumers.
Toy manufacturers should be able to better understand their
customers and their needs beyond viewing them as a faceless
mass of parents and children. They will, perhaps, be able
to see how consumers relate to variables which influence their
toy selection, their beliefs about the purposes of toys, the
environment in which the toy is used and the attributes of
the toy itself.

Consensus Items

"No brand can expect to appeal to all consumers. The
very act of attracting one segment may automatically alienate
others," said Haley (1968).4 In respect to this approach, no

single communication format will attract and motivate all toy

 

4"Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-oriented Research
Tool," p. 34.

86

consumers. As demonstrated by the two segments generated,

care must be taken in communicating with various attitude
segments. All consumers do not entertain identical conceptions
about toys. However, this study does provide ideas for general
communication, manufacturing and marketing strategies and
strategies for specific segments.

Those items held in consensus by both segments can be
used as a basis for communication in mass media, as well as
for manufacturing and.marketing policies. Using two highly
valued consensus items as an example, one can see how
message strategies can be adapted for both the groups.

One important positive consensus item deals with games
for two or more children which help teach them to get along
well with others. While important to both groups, evidence
suggests that the "games for two or more children" which
the attitude segments have in mind, may differ. A.message
could.be designed to reach the two groups by attending to
the needs of both at once. Another strategy would be to
design two or three messages with each one covering two or
three of the needs of both groups. Finally, two separate
messages could be prepared, each one focusing on one need
of one group.

A message for the Play Purist based upon this consensus

87

item might emphasize the sheer pleasure of joining in a
"make-believe" game with good friends. The Eager Education-
alist would appreciate knowing how a game which involves
group activity would prepare his child for future social
interaction.

Another important consensus item deals with the value
of allowing the child to, at least partially, take part in
the toy buying decisions. The child's preference is
important to both behavior segments but reviewing the
evidence for each sketch, one can see how each segment's
motives might differ. The Play Purist would like to know
What his child takes delight in to buy toys simply to
service the sake of enjoyment. The Eager Educationalist
would like to buy toys that suit his child's interests
because children are more apt to learn when the subject

matter appeals to them.

Individual Implications for Factor I
The interpretation of each factor vividly points out

areas of interest for that segment and this information
suggests numerous individual manufacturing, marketing and
advertising strategies for each factor.

"...Toys are most prized andeest loved if they have one

simple quality: fun," says one noted author and toy

88

, researcher.5 Factor I, the Play Purist, demands the
element of "fun" in all the toys he chooses. Of course,
the quality of "fun" is of a rather subjective nature.
But, using the other information generated from the
interpretation of the factor, a line of toys could be
developed that would satisfy the Play Purist's other
stipulations for an ideal toy. Hopefully then, one would
be closer to approximating the Play Purist's concept of
"fun."

Factor I most strongly favors the exercise of a
child's imaginative capacities. Toys which encourage
fantasizing would.be of particular value to the Play
Purist. A few examples of some possibilities might be a
wooden assortment of internationalhomes--an igloo, a
Spanish hacienda, Oriental or African houses--to transport
the child's mind to cultures around the world; in its
simplest form.a lifestyle can‘be tried on‘with just a
change of clothes--a collection of hats denoting different
professions: a baker, an engineer, a professor, a rabbi,
a coal miner, a jockey: nothing is more fascinating than
a face in a looking glass and.hand puppets or dolls with

unbreakable mirror faces would permit the child to experiment

 

5Pogrebin, "Toys For Free Children,“ p. 408.

89

'with the idea of himself in different roles; felt

figures which adhere to a board would allow the child to
create jungle, sports or storyland scenes: for a glorious
symphony or solo, a set of rhythm instruments such as a
tambourine, triangle and cymbals or an array of hand bells
to experiment with musical tones would bring out the
performer in a child.

Factor I supports unstructured play which requires
maximum operation of a child's creativity. Wind-up and
battery-operated toys are of course frowned upon because
the child is left to passively observe their activity. Dr.
Lee Salk, head of Pediatric Psychology at New‘York Hospital/
Cornell Medical Center echoes this sentiment with, “A
good toy does only ten percent of the playing and the child
ninety percent."6

Dr. Benjamin Spock points out:

The toy with which there is only one possible
type of play'because the toy is so highly structured
may fascinate the parent, and it may fascinate the
child for a feW’minutes or perhaps an hour or two.
But it usually peters out as far as interest is

concerned in no time at all and has no constructive,

character¥building or maturing functions for the
child. "7

 

6Lyon, "Do Kids Need Toys Every December 25th?" p. 55.

7Claire Safron, "Sorting It Out," Redbook, p. 98.

90

Hence, some examples of toys which would satisfy
these conditions would be a paper bag sculpture kit;
thick texture paints to squeeze from tubes into designs
which harden to an indestructible finish; candle sculpture
kits to create elaborate candles: wire art kits to make
designs with wires stretched on nails: a battery-operated
projector, with slides kids can make from cutting up maga-
zines pictures; foam rubber in many pieces shapes and
colors to make designs; spool shaped‘blocks with holes
to thread together with a giant wooden "needle"; a large
assortment of tracks and chutes to construct runways down
which wooden‘balls careen; weaving looms or needlework
kits for older children; collage kits with colored yarn,
beads, sequins, buttons, appliques, trim.and braiding in
separate packages and picture frames to display the master-
pieces: a linoleum printing kit with textile inks and
various fabrics to decorate clubhouses or to use as gifts:
that old favorite-~clay--a material that is as malleable as
a child's dreams; a birdhouse kit to build and lure blue-
birds and woodpeckers; or for the older beginning artist
a motorized.potter's wheel with paints and glaze to make
ceramics.

Other suggestions to take into consideration would be

to avoid developing toys with a high violence potential and

91

to steer clear of excessively high pricing. These are
but a few’possibilities fer the use of the information
produced.by the factor interpretation. Closer examina-
tion will no doubt provide limitless ideas for the

creation of toys to accommodate the Play Purist.

gpdividual Implications fog Factor II
Individual practical implications borne out of the

interpretation of Factor II are a horse of a surprisingly
different color. As noted previously, seventy-four of the
eighty-two sorts were loaded in this educationally oriented
segment. The evidence is overwhelming that there is indeed
a boom in educational toys. However, according to prominent
authorities in the area of child.psychology, parental zeal
in the push for early intellectual development may be
somewhat misguided. And, it appears that some toy
manufacturers may be capitalizing on this trend.

Literature laden with quasi-scientific pronouncements

and endorsed by prominent educators is being produced not
by developmental specialists or educators, but by toy
manufacturers. The prose in a Childcraft promotional

pamphlet, Toys gpat Teach, is typical:

Childhood is a never-again-moment. Once it is lived,
it is gone. And if it is not lived in its fullest

92

measure, it.may seriously limit the extent and
self-fulfilled adult....waadays, it is well

known that the richness of a child's environment has
a profound effect on his later life. Recent re-
search has shown that as much as 80 percent of a
child's intelligence is developed before the age

of six--thus making the early years the most criti-
cal period of his life."8

H. Robert Quilitch, director of the Department of
Psychology at the nevada Mental Health Institute, observes
that the reference to "80 percent of a child's intelligence"
is made by many toy companies is almost certainly an indirect
reference made to the research reported in Dr. Benjamin S.
Bloom's hock, Stability and Change in HHman Characteristics
(Wiley and Sons, 1964). It was demonstrated that children
raised in extremely and profoundly deprived environments
might have their I.Q.'s affected by as much as 20 points.

The deprivation that Dr. Bloom points to would be found in
custodial institutions and places where children are seldom
talked to and.have no access to television, radio, books

and newspapers; it refers to environments with deprivation
much greater than that suffered even by poor ghetto children.
Dr. Bloom never mentions the importance of educational toys
when discussing important aspects of the ideal and deprived

environment.9

 

BQuilitch, p. 61

gouilitch, p. 61

93

A "critical period" is a time in a child's mental
development during which he must receive adequate stimula-
tion or possibly accrue some degree of retardation for the
rest of his life, it is claimed. The phrase "a never-again-
moment" is an oblique reference to this notion of the
"critical period."10 As in earnest as the idea sounds,
.many scientists find it less useful than do toy manufactur-
ers.

Beseiged.by requests from worried.parents who were
frantic to ensure the proper mental development of their
child, Dr. Feinbloom and Dr. wolff of the Harvard Medical
School, looked into the matter and drew these conclusions:

There is no evidence at present to support the
assertion that.biologically fixed critical periods
control the sequence of cognitive development, no
evidence that scientifically designed toys are in
any way superior to the usual household items
available to most infants, no evidence that the
systematic application of such toys accelerates
intellectual development, and no persuasive
evidence that acceleration of specific skills
during the sensory motor phase of development,
even if possible, has any lasting effects on
intellectual competence. ....Certainly, it is

not the toys which are a potential source of harm
to the child.but the atmosphere of urgency sur-
rounding infant enrichment programs. If we have
set up toys unjustly as straw'men in this review,
it'was to point concretely to a trend in early
education which may become a well established
practice, and in which we foresee a potential danger

 

Quilitch, p. 61.

94

to the healthy development of children."11

In the same vein, the affective relationShip of the
parent and child in the first two years is apparently
essential for later academic achievement. In their efforts
to train their children in the first two years, parents
may pay a personal price.12

However, H. Robert Quilitch is careful to qualify his
criticisms of the educational toy'boom. He does not claim
that educational toys do not exist. "Rather it seems
reasonable to assume that in certain cases children do
learn from their play‘with toys." He suggests instead
a revamping of the educational toy industry and their
standards.13

In agreement with this suggestion, I believe this study
points to social implications which cannot be ignored. No
one will deny that toys are important. They are a child's
first tools for exploring, communicating and learning about

himself and the world around.him, But the Eager Educationalist

 

llWolff and Feinbloom, p. 1001.

12M. E. Freeberg and D. T. Pyne, "Parental Influence
on Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: A Review,"
Childhood Development (1967), quoted in Wblff and Feinbloom,
p. 1003.

13Quilitch, p. 62.

95

and others like him need to be made aware to what extent
toys can be relied on for early intellectual development
and the dangers of their misuse, through a program of public
education. I recommend further that new industry guidelines
be imposed on the educational toy manufacturers and their
promotion. In accordance with the interests of Factor II,

I have made the following preposals.

Most educational toys today are described.by a wide
variety of vague terms such as "developmental," helping to
provide an "enriched environment," helping the child reach
his “full potential," etc. {As shown earlier the popular
literature dealing with toys is being produced.by the
manufacturers themselves and is unsupported by developmental
specialists or educators. The only consistent characteristics
of most modern educational toys is that their goals are stated
too vaguely to defy evaluation.

The Eager Educationalist places a high value on toys
that are Whacked by research." But instead of settling with
advertising claims, it is clear that the toy-buying public
needs objective information about these toys based on
scientific assessments of their educational value and a
reliable measure of value needs to be devised. However,

before a toy's educational value can be assessed, just

96

what it is supposed to teach must be specified.
H. R. Quilitch reiterates:

It is important to remember that if a
toy's educational goals are not clearly spelled
out, it can never be tested. A research scien-
tist, asked whether a particular toy would enable
a child to "master himself and his prOblems,"
would throw up his hands in despair."14 -
Also toys on the market that are "scientifically

developed" and endorsed by professionals seldom.mention
what research was carried out with the toys and never

include the results of that research in the advertise-
ments.ls

I advocate that if a manufacturer boasts of the
"educational value" of his toys then parents have every
right to expect that the skills that the toys intend to
teach are clearly specified, the toy has been tested.by a
reliable measure in a play situation with children, and
the results of the first hand observation of the testing
be documented in detail on the package or label. Endorse-
ments made by professionals must be dealt with in the same
manner.

Before they wonder if a toy will do their children any
good, parents want to be certain it won't do them any harm

and safety is a prime consideration for the Eager Educational-

 

14Quilitch, p. 62.
15Lyon, p. 98

97

ist. ‘The toy industry's Ralph Mader, Edward M. Schwartz,
catalogued horror stories of children being burned, poisoned,
electrocuted, blinded, strangled and killed by accidents
with toys.16 As a result of such pressures, the Federal
Government has proposed two important new safety regula-
tions. If the toy had parts that were small enough to be
swallowed it would be labeled unsafe for a child under three
by one of the new regulations. If it can pass through a
test cylinder that measures, roughly, one and l/4-inches

by two and l/2-inches, a toy piece is considered "small

enough."17

Toys will be required to pass a special "drop test"
by the second regulation. The test is not designed to '
guarantee that toys won't break, but to make sure they don't
present such dangers as sharp edges or too-small pieces
if they do break. For a child under 18 months, the toy
will be dropped on a tile-over-concrete surface ten times
from a height of four-endeaéhalf feet, simulating its being
thrown from a high chair or out of a crib. For a child over
two, the toy would be dropped four times on.the same surface

from.a height of 3-feet, simulating its being dropped from a

 

16Lyon, pp. 55-56 .

17Safron, p. 99.

98

regular chair.18
Using these guidelines, I recommend that manufacturers
label toys according to the ages for which they would be

considered safe.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ggoks

Athey, Irene. "Piaget, Play and Problem Solving," in

Play as a Learnipg Medium. ed. Doris Sponseller.
Washington, D. C., 1974.

Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society. New'YOrk, 1950

Isaacs, S. Intellectual Gpowth in Young Children. New Ybrk,
1966.

Piaget, Jean. Dreams and Imitation. new Ybrk, 1962
Pogrebin, Letty Cottin. "Down With Sexist upbringing,"
in The First M,S. Reader. ed. Francine Klagsburn.

New York, 1973.

. "Toys For Free Children," in Sexism and‘YOuth.
ed. Diane Gersoni - Stavn. new’YOrk, 1974.

Triandis, Harry C. Attitude and Attitude Change. new'York,
1971.
Periodicals
Forkan, James P. ”Toy Execs See unisex Trend: Cite 'Action
Dolls' For Boys," Advertising Age, February 25,
1974, p. 2. -

Frank, L. "Play is valid," Childhood Education, XLIV
(March 1968), 433-440.

Haley, Russell I. "Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-

oriented Research Tool," Journal of Marketing,
XXXII (July 1968), 30-35.

99

100

 

. "Beyond Benefit Segmentation," Journal of
Advertising Research, II (August 1971), 3-8.

Heller, Harry E. “Defining Target Markets by Their Attitude
Profiles," in Attitude Research on the Rocks, ed.
Lee Adler and Irving Crespi (American Marketing
Association, 1968). P. 45.

Lyon, Nancy. "Do Kids Need Toys Every December 25th?
Do Kids Need Toys At All? Are Any Toys worth
This Shopping Ordeal?" M.S. Magazine, December,
1972, pp. 55-98.

Quilitch, H. Robert. "Can Toys Really Teach?" Saturday
Review, November 16, 1974. PP. 60-62.

Safron, Claire. "Sorting It Out," Redbook. PP. 98-99.

Slavson, S.R. "Play Group Therapy for‘YOung Children,"
The Nervous Child, VII (1948), 218-219.

Stephenson,‘william. "Public Images of Public Utilities,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 1963.

. "The Contributions of Q to Attitude Research,“
in Attitude Research op the Rocks, ed. Lee
Adler and Irving Crespi (American Marketing
Association, 1968), p. 162.

 

wolff, Peter H. and Richard I. Feinbloom. "Critical
Periods and Cognitive Development in the First
Two Years," Pediatrics, XLIV (December 1969),
999-1006.

Yankelovich, Daniel. "New Criteria for Market Segmentation,"
Harvard Business Review, XLII (March-April 1964) ,
89.

unpublished Material

Booth, Laurel, "An Image Study of McCall's Magazine."
unpublished university of Missouri Master of
Arts thesis, 1968.

Fischer, Eric D. "The Automobile and the Consumer:
Operant Market Segmentation." Unpublished
Michigan State University Master of Arts
thesis, 1973.

101

Ganz, Phillip. "The Student and the Small College:
Operant Market Segmentation." Unpublished

Michigan State university Master of Arts thesis,
1973.

King, Gerald F. "Sex Education for the Mentally Impaired:
An Attitude Segmentation Study." Unpublished
Michigan State University research report, 1974.

Mauldin, Charles R. and Janeen A. Mauldin. "Institutional
Employee Attitudes About the Retarded." Unpublished
University of Missouri research report, 1971.

Mauldin, Charles R., John C. Sutherland and John F.
Hofmeister. "The Use of Attitude Segmentation
in Selecting Market Targets and Choosing a New
Product Name: Application to an Automated Teller
System." unpublished research report presented
to the Advertising Division of the Association
for Education in Journalism, Lansing, 1977.

McCarty, Ricky H. "Packaging and Advertising of Men's
Toiletries: An Intensive Analysis of a Pure
Type." Unpublished university of Missouri
Master of Arts thesis, 1972.

Shinn, Steven, "An Image Study of the University of Missouri,
Columbia." unpublished university of Missouri
Master of Arts thesis, 1971.

Stephenson, William. "An Image for Missouri's Public
Libraries." unpublished university of Missouri
research report, 1962.

. Unpublished paper expounding methodological and
theoretical foundations in application of Q-meth-
odology in advertising. Columbia, Missouri, 1967.

 

Tschirhart, Nancy Lois. "Lifestyles vs. Behavior Segments:
A Study of Dental Health Consumers." Unpublished

Michigan State University Master of Arts thesis,
1973.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FOCUS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

APPENDIX.A

FOCUS INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Focus Interview Schedule: Toys

I'd like to talk to you about children's toys, to get a feel

for what toys your children like and how’you go about choosing

them.

1. HOW'many children do you have? What are their names
and ages? .

2. Recall the last time you bought a toy or toys. What
were the circumstances?

3. For each of your children, tell me what kinds of toys
do they like? (Ask: "How do you‘know’when the child
likes that toy?" Learn how the parent judges a _
successful toy: length of time played with, amount of
excitement shown, etc.).

4. What kinds of toy does each child dislike?

5. For each child, what kinds of toys do you like them to
have? (Why? What do you want toys to do for the child?
For you?)

6. For each child, what kinds of toys do you avoid?

7. Do you and your (spouse) choose the same kinds of toys
for your children? (Discover if using different choice
criteria and why).

8. When do you buy toys for your children? (Answers may

be special occasions or not.) Do you buy toys differ-
ently at different occasions? (How? Why? Christmas?

Birthdays? Shopping trips? Etc .)

102

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

103

' How do you buy toys? (Stores - what kinds? Catalogues?)

Do you like to shop for toys? Why?/Why not?

Describe the best place to get toys. (Why is it the
best?)

What are your children's favorite tv programs? Stories?
Toys ? Games. 9

Can.you name any toy companies?
(List them, then for each, ask:
What do you think of (company)?)

What do you think are the major influences on your
decision to buy toys for your children? (How'do you
feel about each influence?)

What do you think are the major influences on your
children's toy purchases?

What do you think are appropriate price ranges for toys
that you buy?

What do you think about the number of toys your
children have?

Do you think that your children have different experiences
with toys than you did as a child?

In what ways?

What do you think about the differences?

APPENDIX B

STATEMENTS IN THE Q-SAMPIE

10.

11.

12.

APPENDIX B
STATEMENTS IN'THE Q—SAMPLE
Giving toys is nothing more than a way of showing love
and affection.

I'm against organized or structured kinds of play.

When playing, a child should have to differentiate
between what is real life and what is fun or silly.

A child needs a certain amount of make-believe, and
fantasy play should be encouraged.

There should be competition with other children.
Competition is important. Children have to learn to
cope with it to survive later.

A toy should require the child to be creative in playing
with it. -

The child shouldn't have many manufactured toys so that

' he learns to create out of his natural surroundings.

I like toys with batteries. They move. They‘gg something.

It's so important to consider a child's age in selecting
toys.

Most educational toys are good for a single purpose.
Consequently, they can stifle a child's creativity.

It's hard for me to find good toys for my children.
Finally, you never really know'what toy a kid will like.
A little child will sometimes ignore a new toy to play
with a baking soda can.

104

A 13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
26.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

105

Toys are good if they help teach a child the importance
of following instructions.

I buy toys for my children that I'd like if I were a
child.

Ybu can buy a child too many toys. It's important to
learn to be happy with what you have.

I prefer toys that my child can play with without my
help or participation.

I don't like structured learning for kids under five
years. The child gets enough of that when he starts
school.

When it comes to toys, I am.immune to advertising.

The parent should.buy only toys that he thinks his child
would like.

It would be nice to have toys that kids continue to have
fun with. usually, children get tired of toys long
before they wear out.

I like toys that children construct. They can be proud
of it as a finished product.

Price plays an important role in my choice of toys for
my children.

Advertising is the big thing. If ads create a big
enough want in children, the parents usually end up
satisfying the want.

I like a toy that is a novel, creative idea.

Kids should have some say so in the types of toys his
parents buy for him.

I like games that allow you to build a good relationship
with your child.

A child should.have to take care of his toys. It teaches
him.responsibility.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

106

It's nice to buy a toy for a child when he is ill.
I sometimes reward my child with a toy when he behaves.

Aanody will spend $2.00 for a toy these days. The day of
the dollar gift is gone.

You have to be careful buying toys. Many toy makers
will produce anything that will sell -- regardless
of safety or potential harmful uses.

Both parents should agree on the right criteria for
selecting toys for their children.

The main purpose of a toy or a game is to help my
child‘have fun and to laugh.

It's important for kids to experience success. Therefore,
toys should not be too difficult for the child.

I prefer to give my children toys that do something --
that move or walk or something.

Toys should be bright and colorful.

Most toys are safe enough, and that usually isn't an
important part of my buying decision.

There is no such thing as a safe toy. A ball lying
on a stairway is unsafe, but is not a "dangerous" toy.

A toy that has too many pieces can turn into a pain in
the neck for the parent, especially when it comes to "pick
up" time.

Toys serve the useful purpose at times of keeping kids
entertained and out of adult hair.

I like to buy toys that have parts to put together.
I like toys that get children out of doors.
I avoid toy guns and other toys with high violence

potential. we have enough violence in the world without
encouraging children to "play" violence.

44.

45.

47.

48.

49. ’

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

107

Games and toys for two or more children are good; they
teach kids to get along with others.

People who won't buy their child a "scary" toy forget
how much fun it is to be scared -- when you know you're
not really in danger.

I buy toys that my child likes, but they also must meet
my own criteria of acceptability.

A good toy is backed up by research as to what children
need and what is safe for them.

I look for durability in a toy. If it isn't sturdy, it
will get torn up in a hurry.

A toy should.he simple and uncomplicated.

Kids learn from almost everything. It doesn't matter
that much whether the game is structured or make-believe.

Board games are a family affair. We can all sit down
and have fun together.

A toy should provide a challenge to the child's intelli-
gence.

The right kind of toys are useful in teaching manipulative
skills.

A good toy can give a child a sense of achievement and
develop concentration and perseverance.

I like to buy toys that have working parts so the child
has to think a little.

I want my child to have toys that will help him think
constructively, not just pass time.

APPENDIX C

Q-MNTRIX
AND
QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C

 

Q—MNTRIX
AND
QUESTIONNAIRE

TOY STUDY Subject #
1973
Most Most
Disagree N = 56 Agree

-6 .25. -4 1:11;; o +_1. +2 +3 +4 +§.__1L

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) (2)

 

 

 

(3) (3)
(4) (4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(5) (5) (5) (5)

 

 

 

 

 

(6) (6) (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVIEWER:

SUBJECT:

AGE : SEX : OCCUPATION:

MARRIED: NUMBER OF CHILDREN:

AGES OF CHILDREN: L______L_____.h_____—L——————h——————
RELIGION:

 

108

(1.)

(2.)

(3-)

109

Estimate, as an average, how many toys you purchase
per child for:

Christmas______

Birthday

Other Special Occasions
an-Special Occasion Per Year

Describe your favorite toy for children

 

 

 

On the back of this page, please explain why you agree
‘with the +6 statements and why you disagree with the
-6 statements.

APPENDIX D

DEmGRAPHIC DATA

 

 

uoasmao 03055 0 o m on .m S
wone>uomsm owaosuso o o 2 mm 2 mo
ucoosum Ufiaonvso o o m on m Hm
assumes odaocuco m .oa N _2 an m hm
ucoosum .. o o m «N m E
xuoao unsunmuoum .: .NH .3 m 2 mm a me
6288 ucaummuoum 2 .NH :3 m s an m 3.
assumes .. w .m N 2 mm 2 mm

cowusmoooo coamdamm meme sonoaanv mo nousum mod. flow unmonomnmm

Honeaz Havana:

 

.susn cannehmoeun .H Haposmlt.aln manna

GIT

 

Housuomo

 

moneys Havana:

wousoeoo unHosue e H 2 MN 2 mN
Houaummo
Houomeoo unHonue e H 2 MN 2 ¢N
announces unannououm .nus ma H 2 am a an
unHmsHmSB unsunovoum .nafi mH H z eN m ON
Hmaosoa asuonuoq o o z. mN m mH
espouse couotuoq o o E mN m mH
husuouoom unannououm o o z mN m 5H
husuouoom unannououm o o .2 mN m mH
usoooum UHHonvso o o z. mN m mH
Homooum OHHonvmo o o z wN m ¢H
uthsce
.omcH OHHnsm :oHHsmoomHmm o o m NN h mH
umsHasc
.omcH UHHnom :sHHsmoomHmm o o m NN m NH
Homnomoum UHHossz H .m .h m 2 pm 2 HH
Hounsomsmz UHHmoome o o m mN 1: m
Houmsonsmz OHDnocme o o m mN z m
smochcm OHHonusO o o z. hN z b
Hmmchcm UHHonumv o o 2 FN 2 w
Homnmmoum umHmnud o .m N 2 FN z o
:sHOHussom seasonsq N H z mN m N
:oHoHusomm onumcvsq N H z mN m H
GOHusmoUUO GOHmHHmm mama :oHoHHSU mo nousum one New unoppommom

 

.oumn OHnaohmOEoQ .HH HOHUmmII.NIn mHQsB

III

 

 

onwsz unHoonvoz m .m N z oN m me
wanna unHoocvmz m .m N A: wN m we
ucoooum OHHonusO o o m ¢N m be
ucoosum OHHonusO o o m eN m we
seasonsom uuHmnu< H H 2 mN h me
mMHsonoom unHosud H H z. mN m Ne
assumes unsunououm o o z oN a He
panacea unannououm o o z eN m om
mMHsmmsom OHHonusU m H z 5N m hm
mMHsmnoom UHHonmao m H 2 FN m on
assumes coHHoUNQmowm o o .2 mN m mm
assumes csHumuhnmon o o .2 mN m em
unmosum csHunHHSU o o 2 mN 2 mm
ucoosum csHuancu o o z mN 2 NM
penance unannouonm o o 2 mN m Hm
assumes unannououo o o z mN m on
unmosum xooonvho
xoouw h H 2 on m mN
unmosum xooosvuo
xeouu h H .2 on m 0N
Humans:
oanHnom UHHonumO m .h N Z on S 5N
Houses:
anocHnom OHHonusO m .5 N 2 on 2 mN
sOHuomsouo COHmHHom some :oHoHHEU mo noucaw owe New unmonanmm
Honepz Hsunsz

 

emanaucoo--.muo magma

ZII

 

 

oMHEwmoom pogo: . mat: N H z «N .m on
ucoosum uuHorua NH .m N e an a ma
outsomoom unsunovoum .338 m H z mN .m 3.
mMHaaonsom OHHofisU 0H .m N 2 mN .m 2.
omwzonsom UHHofi—mv 0H .m N 2 mN .m NH.
Museums UHHofisO o o m MN .m Ha.
Hancock. UHHofi—so o o m MN .m on
outsmmoom unannouonm m H z NN .m mm
035933“ unsung—Ohm m H S 5N .m mm
“8.325 UHHofisO o o m 0N ..H mm
.3056:an
0.25% #8354 w H 2 5N 2 mo
mongoose
9.6mm “momenta p H z 5N S no
HonHaruomom UHHosuso o o 2 MN 2 mm
mmHzonoom usmumououm m .m .m m 2 Nm .m mm
oMHzomoom unannououm m .m .m m 2 NM .m mm
penance UHHofisO H. .OH N z Hm .m mm
unoosum unHonuc o o m NN m mm
usoosum unHofiE m ..m N n on m mm
unoooum unHonud m .m N n on m Nm
humumuoom 9305.2 o H z VN .m Hm
Musuouumm augments e H z «N .m cm
GOHusmsooo . GOHmHHom none GoHoHHSU mo nousum and wow upoosommom
Hons—oz HsvHHmz

 

oossHucoouu.muo mHnae

SIT

 

 

HousHunHaHfioc #369302 e 6 N 2 HM .m Hm
333035: “coupon—Ono m .m .0H M 2 NM m cm
uncommon uncommon uncommon cocoons.»
uncommon oz UHHofi—so oz oz oz 02 2 mm
uncommon oncomnou oncomnou uncommon
uncommon oz UHHozvoo oz oz oz oz m up
HmHHoB xcsm :mHuouannoum o o m MN m mm
zusuouoom 93.654 N J N 2 MN .m or
“seesaw 33 5352. M H 2 MN 2 mp
Mono—5.... #nHoonuoz N H z mN 2 Na
HousuunHGHfioe EanH N .M .m R 5:: w 2 ow S Hm
omH3mnooz anH H 3v .0 M 2 mN .m or
newness—com unannououm H965 oz M 2 we .m mm.
pouHumm #3652 o o m MN. .m ms.
se.—Eonoom unannououm m .0H .0H .MN e S mm ...H 2.
GOHusmoooo GOHoHHom some :oHoHHn—U mo non—sum. mod snow unconomnmm
Hone—oz HsHHHoz

 

possesses-.. . «no 6369

VII

APPENDIX E

UNROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

115

Table E-l.--Unrotated Factor Loadings

 

 

Respondent Factor I Factor II
1. .542 -.089
2. .536 -.088
3. .291 -.254
4. .497 —.074
5. .395 -.164
6. .697 .454
7. .640 .458
8. .589 .032
9. .588 .044

10. .341 -.316
11. .656 -.077
12. .503 .086
13. .610 -.060
14. .659 -.038
15. .743 .083
16. .728 .133
17. .641 .184
18. .616 .401
19. .616 .440
20. .737 -.063
21. .747 -.053
22. .202 -.401
23. .224 -.331
24. .451 -.160
25. .492 .091
26. .650 .027
27. .597 .046
28. .498 -.034
29. .456 -.062
30. .634 -.101
31. .661 -.165
32. .362 .107
33. .382 —.092
34. .772 .420
35. .771 .360
36. .541 .468
37. .390 .560

38.

.230

-0055

116

Table E-1.--Continued

 

 

Respondent Factor I Factor II
39. .337 .074
40. .573 -.136
41. .635 -.304
42. .555 -.043
43. .590 -.114
44. .333 -.439
45. .470 -.525
46. .743 .037
47. .692 .047
48. .648 .154
49. .578 .053
50. .676 .178
51. .616 .269
52. .532 .063
53. .573 .175
54. .461 .345
55. .481 .150
56. .512 .227
57. .497 .414
58. .673 .206
59. .705 .024
60. .336 -.149
61. .467 .365
62. .513 .287
63. .493 .202
64. .562 .171
65. .603 .108
66. .630 .272
67. .630 .314
68. .604 .294
69. .520 .013
70. .641 .127
71. .544 .238
72. .605 .229
73. .672 .089
74. .667 .231
75. .500 .019
76. .755 .124
77. .783 .260

117

Table E-1.--Continued

 

 

Respondent Factor I Factor II
78. .640 -.124
79. .490 .210
80. .415 .140
81. .478 .243
82. .659 .128
83. .774 .138
84. .662 .233
85. .686 .058
86. .169 -.268
87. .692 .252
88. .650 .306
89. -.l65 .163
90. .566 -.100
91. .496 .127
92. .208 -.280

Imumm