Showing posts with label Toddlers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toddlers. Show all posts

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

An over-abundance of toys may stifle toddler creativity




When my kids were toddlers, there were caches of easily-accessible toys in most rooms of our house. But perhaps I should have kept most of them stored away, and brought just a few out at a time, on rotation – because the results of a new study in Infant Behaviour and Development suggest that a toddler with few toy options not only spends longer playing with each one – presumably developing their attentional skills – but is also more creative in their play.



Carly Dauch at the University of Toledo, US, and her colleagues studied 36 toddlers, aged between 18 and 30 months. The researchers drew from a pool of 32 toys of four types: educational toys (that teach colours, for example), “pretend” toys (that suggested themed scenarios – perhaps playing a being a doctor, for instance), action toys (that required an action such as stacking or building from the toddler, for example) and vehicles. The researchers videoed the toddlers taking part in two, 15-minute supervised play sessions: in one, they were in a room with one toy from each category (so four toys in total) and in the other, there were four from each category (so 16 in total).

The researchers found that when they presented the toddlers with 16 toys, the toddlers played on average with half of them during the assessment. In contrast, when they presented them with just four toys, the kids played on average with three.

Most importantly, the amount of toys available seemed to affect the way the toddlers played. When only four toys were on offer, each of the, on average, 10 play “incidents” lasted longer – around two minutes – compared with about a minute each for the, on average, 20 play incidents in the 16-toy condition. With fewer toys, the children also came up with about 60 per cent more different ways of interacting with each toy (such as “pretending”, “inserting”, “stacking”, etc).

Sixteen toys are more distracting than four, the authors conclude. Fewer available toys allow a child to focus more on a toy, to explore it more thoroughly, and to discover different ways of using it. Given evidence that young children can benefit from attention training, “an environment that presents fewer distractions may provide toddlers [with] the opportunity to exercise their intrinsic attention capabilities,” the researchers write.

Certainly, many kids in the US and the UK, for example, are not exactly short on toys. In the UK, the toy market is worth around £3.5 billion annually, while in the US, around US$3.1 billion is spent on toys specifically for infants and pre-schoolers every year. One study of American middle class family homes reported that, on average, 139 toys were visible, with most homes having at least 100 and some as many as 250. Given these numbers, “potential disruption in play created by an abundance of toys may be even more apparent within a naturalistic environment,” the researchers write.

However, the toys used in this study did not belong to the children involved. As anyone who’s ever taken a young child to the house of another – and witnessed the subsequent play frenzy – knows, unfamiliar toys are far more exciting, and distracting than familiar ones. It isn’t very surprising that the toddlers in the 16-toy condition checked out as many as they could, as quickly as they could.

Of course, one way to stop young kids getting quickly bored of their toys is to restrict access to them. If hiding away most toys and making only a few available at any one time helps toddlers to develop their attentional skills – and be more creative in their play – and increases the odds that you’ll be able to walk through the living room without tripping over – surely it’s the way to go.

SOURCE:


Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Toddlers learn better when you make them giggle



There is probably nothing more fun than making a baby or toddler laugh. And now there's news that it could even help with learning – the toddler's not the adult's.

In the first study to look at the effects of humour on learning at such a young age, Rana Esseily and her colleagues began by showing 53 18-month-olds how to reach a toy duck with a cardboard rake (other toddlers who'd spontaneously used the rake as a reaching tool were excluded). Crucially, half the participating toddlers were given several non-humorous demonstrations of how to use the rake to reach and pull the duck nearer. In these straight demonstrations, the experimenter was smiley, but just played with the duck for a bit after getting hold of it. The other toddlers were given several humorous demonstrations. In this case, after getting hold of the duck, the experimenter suddenly threw it on the floor and smiled. Sixteen of the 37 toddlers in the jokey condition laughed at least once when shown the funny demonstrations.

Next, the researchers placed the rake near each toddler's hand, to see if they would imitate the action and use the rake to reach the duck for themselves. Among the laughing toddlers, all but one (93.7 per cent) used the rake to reach the duck. In comparison, just 19 per cent of the non-laughing toddlers in the jokey condition used the rake, and just 25 per cent of the 16 toddlers who'd been given the straight (non-jokey) demonstrations.

"Our results suggest that laughing might be a stimulant of learning even during the second year of life," the researchers concluded. However, they conceded that there are other possible interpretations of their findings. For example, perhaps infants who laugh at jokes are just more cognitively advanced and that's why they showed superior learning (although if that were true, you'd also expect a similar range of ability in the control group, which wasn't found). Or maybe it's not laughter per se that aids toddlers' learning, but any kind of positive emotion. "Further work is clearly now required to elucidate the question of the mechanisms underlying this effect of laughter on infants' learning," the researchers said.

_________________________________

SOURCE:
http://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/06/toddlers-learn-better-when-you-make.html?utm_source=BPS_Lyris_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%5Brd%5D+The+Latest+Psychology+Research(accessed 7.7.15)


Esseily, R., Rat-Fischer, L., Somogyi, E., O'Regan, K., & Fagard, J. (2015). Humour production may enhance observational learning of a new tool-use action in 18-month-old infants Cognition and Emotion, 1-9 DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1036840

Monday, 30 September 2013

Seven-year-olds' beliefs about ability are associated with the way they were praised as toddlers


----------------------------------------

Laboratory research pioneered by psychologist Carol Dweck has shown the short-term benefits of praising children for their efforts rather than their inherent traits. Doing so leads children to adopt a so-called "incremental mindset" - seeing ability as malleable and challenges as an opportunity to learn.

Now a new study co-authored by Dweck and led by Elizabeth Gunderson has made the first ever attempt to monitor how parents praise their young children in real-life situations, and to see how their style of praise is related to the children's mindset five years later.

The researchers observed and recorded 53 individual parents interacting with their children in the home for 90 minutes, whether playing, having a meal or whatever. They did this when the children were aged 14, 26 and 38 months. Five years later, the researchers caught up with the kids and asked them questions about their attitudes and mindset towards ability, challenges and moral goodness.

The key finding was the more parents tended to praise their pre-school age children for effort (known as process praise, as in "good job"), the more likely it was that those children had a "incremental attitude" towards intelligence and morality when they were aged seven to eight. This mindset was revealed by their seeing intelligence and moral attributes as malleable. For example, such children tended to agree that people can get smarter if they try harder, and disagree with the idea that a naughty child with always be naughty.

This association held even after the researchers controlled for a raft of other variables such as the families' socioeconomic status, the parents' own mindset towards ability, and total amount of parental praise.

"We present the first results indicating that the process praise children hear naturalistically bears a relation to their motivational frameworks that parallels the relation between process praise and motivational frameworks found experimentally," the researchers said.

Unlike parents' early use of process praise, there was no link between parents' early tendency to praise children for their traits (known as person praise, as in "you're so smart") and children's later ability mindset. This could be because the researchers actually observed very little person praise - it accounted for less than 10 per cent of praise-related utterances.

Although Gunderson and her colleagues acknowledged the limitations of their study - including the fact that it was observational and does not prove a causal link between parents' praise style and the children's later mindset - they said the results had important real-life implications. "In particular," they said, "praise that emphasises children's effort, actions, and strategies may not only predict but also impact and shape the development of children's motivational frameworks in the cognitive and social domains."

There were some other intriguing details. Parents who themselves held an incremental mindset towards ability actually tended to use more person praise with their children - perhaps, the researchers surmised, because they believed in the need to boost their children's self-esteem as a way to increase their ability.

Also, it was noteworthy that lab research in this area has tended to use praise that is explicitly process focused, as in "you must have tried hard." However, the researchers didn't uncover a single use of that phrase, and all forms of explicit process praise were hard to come by. This goes to show just how important it is to conduct observational research in real-life settings, to make sure that lab research is realistic.

Finally, the study revealed that parents tend to use more person praise with girls and more process praise with boys, echoing similar results in earlier research. In turn, later on, boys tended to express an incremental mindset more often than girls. This tallies with the picture painted in the developmental literature that girls more than boys attribute failure to lack of ability, especially in maths and science. This study raises the possibility that this could be due in part to the way they are praised at an early age.
_________________________________ 

SOURCE:

BPS RESEARCH DIGEST : http://www.researchdigest.org.uk/

Gunderson EA, Gripshover SJ, Romero C, Dweck CS, Goldin-Meadow S, and Levine SC (2013). Parent Praise to 1- to 3-Year-Olds Predicts Children's Motivational Frameworks 5 Years Later. Child development, 84 (5), 1526-41 PMID: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397904


Further reading. Carole Sutton on a campaign to increase parents' praise of children (Jan 2012 Psychologist magazine):


Monday, 6 May 2013

Toddlers are afraid of falling but not of heights


----------------------------------------

When we adults are confronted by a bridge, we're concerned not just by its width and sturdiness, but also by the height of the drop beneath. If there's a deep canyon, we'd usually rather the bridge was mighty strong and wide. If there's but a short drop, we'll happily jaunt along the narrowest, flimsiest of crossings - after all, it won't matter much if we fall.

Infants - those aged 11 to 14 months - are different. They don't want to fall, so they're wary of narrow bridges. But the height of the drop makes no difference to them at all. "We found clear evidence that infants are averse to falling from a height," said the researchers Kari Kretch and Karen Adolph, "but no evidence of adult-like anxiety that increases with drop-off height."

Kretch and Adolph challenged 37 14-month-olds to walk across a bridge of varying widths spanning a 76cm gap between two surfaces. The drop beneath the bridge was either large (71cm - nearly the infants' standing height) or short (17cm - roughly knee-high to the infants). An experimenter was on-hand to prevent any falls. 

When faced with a more narrow crossing, the toddlers were more cautious as you'd expect - they hesitated, felt their way, and proceeded more slowly. Too narrow and they'd even refuse to go ahead. Crucially, however, their crossing behaviour didn't vary according to the height of the drop. A similar result was found when the study was repeated with 11-month-olds who were still crawling.

It's not that the walkers and crawlers couldn't perceive the difference in the height of the drops. When they refused to cross a very narrow bridge, they'd climb down into the small drop, but not the big drop.

At first, these new results might appear to contradict Gibson and Walk's classic "visual cliff" experiments conducted in the 1960s, in which babies refused to crawl onto a glass surface that had the appearance of a cliff edge. However, the visual cliff studies, and other research since, didn't disentangle risk of falling from the issue of fall height and the likelihood of injury. The researchers point out their new results aren't as surprising as they might seem. Toddlers are effectively averse to all dangers of falling, whether down a short or big drop. Unlike adults, they don't calibrate according to the relative risk. 

"How would infants know that the longer an object (or baby) falls, the harder it hits the ground?" asked Kretch and Adolph. "Certainly by adulthood, we understand this intuitively. An open question is how and when this understanding develops." They acknowledged it would be useful for future research to explore a broader range of heights, to see if there's any level at which toddlers do register a greater danger.
_________________________________ 

SOURCE: 




Kretch, K., and Adolph, K. (2013). No bridge too high: Infants decide whether to cross based on the probability of falling not the severity of the potential fall. Developmental Science, 16 (3), 336-351 DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12045