MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388479828 · doi:10.1007/s44202-023-00097-z

“Boys Love Boy Toys”: a qualitative study exploring the role of fathers in young boys’ gendered toy preferences

2023· article· en· W4388479828 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Tesolin, Elsa Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityPsychologySocializationFemininityDevelopmental psychologyGender psychologyNegotiationGender identityGender schema theoryGender roleIdentity (music)Gender studiesSocial psychologyQualitative researchSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Children come to understand the concept of gender and learn to differentiate roles and norms on the basis of gender in early childhood. By interacting with individuals in their social contexts (i.e., family and peers), children are taught about gender norms and expectations, and as a result, learn to negotiate their own identities within different contexts. Parents have an especially important role in how children come to understand their own gender identity, as they have the ability to shape their childrens’ behaviors by endorsing certain gender stereotypes (e.g., girls wear pink, and boys play with trucks). For young boys, their fathers are a key socialization agent in their gender development, as they convey both implicitly and explicitly, gender-appropriate ways of being. Fathers may endorse ideas of traditional masculinity, which constrain boys to conform to the expected male norms, and discourages them from engaging in perceived feminine behaviors, such as cross-gender play. Accordingly, young boys are often expected to prove their manhood by marking their masculinity against femininity, in a power struggle where they are trying to get their gender right. Based on established and current literature in the field of gender identity development and masculinity in early childhood, this qualitative study aimed to explore young boys’ existing working schema of masculinity and the role that their fathers play in shaping it. Participants included six father–son pairs, with boys (ages 4–6) and their fathers (ages 34–37). Fathers were first asked to complete an adapted version of the Child-Rearing Sex-Role Attitude Scale , which assessed their attitudes and beliefs about gender-related toys, activities, and behaviors. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with the father–son pairs, where they participated in a series of toy-preference activities in a virtual game. Descriptive coding and content analysis were used to analyze the responses boys provided for their toy preferences. Boys reported having a more stereotyped definition of “girl toys” than of “boy toys”, as reflected in their choices of toys that they felt that only girls would like to play with. Fathers’ self-described beliefs reported on the Child-Rearing Sex-Role Attitude Scale were similarly reflected in their behaviours and comments during the interviews with their sons, such that fathers who shared stereotypical beliefs about gender-related behaviours and activities on the scale, engaged in behaviours which corresponded to their beliefs when interacting with their sons. Implications for families and educators are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.158
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover PsychologySame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207