Understanding Hasset et al.

(monkey toy preferences)

The psychology being investigated: play, socialization, sex differences, role of hormones
1. Play: Behavior typical of childhood that appears to be done for fun rather than any useful purpose. It may be
solitary or social and may or may not involve interaction with an object. Objects designed for the purpose of
play are called ‘toys.’ Many psychologists agree that play allows the individual to practice the skills required in
adulthood and this is true of both humans and animals. So, play may be adaptive - that is, it helps us to survive
2. Socialization: the process of learning to behave in socially acceptable ways. This may differ somewhat for the
two genders and between cultures.
3. Sex differences: biological sex is determined by our sex chromosomes, typically XX for females and XY for
males, although many differences can occur. Typically, these chromosomes determine levels of hormones
such as testosterone and oestrogen, which cause differences in the development of male and female brains.
For example, the sex hormones affect neural development, including neurogenesis (cell birth) and
synaptogenesis (creation of connections between neurons), and have been associated with differences in
cognitive processes.
4. Role of hormones: some psychologists believe male and female children prefer toys that can be used for
activities that suit their specific cognitive abilities. These abilities, as stated above, depend upon the children's
differing sex hormone levels. Additionally, prenatal hormone exposure to androgens influence children’s toy
preferences. For instance, girls with CAH exhibit more boy typical toy preferences than control girls.

Background:
Sex differences in toy preferences among humans: with boys generally choosing masculine toys and girls playing
with both feminine and masculine toys. This divergence is attributed to societal gender roles (societal ideas of
expected masculine and feminine gender roles) by some psychologists, while others suggest the actual features of
toys play a pivotal role in fulfilling children's diverse needs, such as manipulation or cradling.

Additionally, biological factors, such as exposure to prenatal hormones, also influence toy preferences. For
instance, girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) show toy preferences more in line with boys than girls.
Even when CAH girls are encouraged by their parents to play with female-typical toys, they still play with, and
show a greater preference, for masculine toys.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia: (CAH)

Hassett et al.'s thoughts on play, toy preference and the nature versus nurture debate were influenced by
observations of children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an inherited condition where the fetus (unborn
child) is exposed to higher than usual levels of prenatal androgens (male sex hormones). Research shows that girls
with CAH show a preference for stereotypically male toys in comparison with their unaffected sisters (Berenbaum
and Hines, 1992). Pasterski et al. (2005) also found that, while parents encouraged their daughters with CAH to
play with stereotypically female toys more than they did their unaffected female siblings, these children still
preferred stereotypically male toys. Findings like these have led researchers, including Hassett et al., to favor the
idea that toy preferences are shaped, initially at least, by hormones, not socialization.

Previous research on monkeys:

Female vervet monkeys exposed to prenatal androgens do not always behave as expected. Although they
participated in more rough-and-tumble play than untreated controls (Goy et al., 1988), their interest in infants is
unaffected (Herman et al., 2003). Furthermore, Alexander and Hines (2002) found that male vervet monkeys
played more with stereotypically male human toys than the female monkeys but, unlike humans, the males spent
a similar amount of time interacting with male and female toys. In contrast, females showed a strong preference
for female versus male toys.
How is Hasset et al.’s study different from previous research?
1. Type of monkeys
Previous research: vervet monkeys
Current research: rhesus monkeys

2. Display of toys
Previous research - Did not make subjects choose between masculine and feminine toys simultaneously available
and thus could not directly measure preference. Instead they compared the relative proportion of interaction
times with singly presented toys as a proxy for preference.
Current research – multiple trials of simultaneous access to different two toy combinations of multiple toys: one
putatively masculine and one putatively feminine.

Why study monkeys?

Studying monkeys helps to separate the effects of nature and nurture as monkeys are not socialized to play with
any specific type of toys, and so any sex differences that are observed must be determined by biological not social
factors.

Evolutionary continuity between monkeys and humans means findings from primates may help to determine the
role of biological factors in toy preferences in human infants.

Why are there sex differences in children’s toy preferences? [Nature vs. nurture]

Nurture: (socialization)
Children’s toy preferences conform to expended gender roles because of societal endorsement of toys as
masculine or feminine.

Nature: (preference for specific activities due to hormones)

Boys and girls prefer toys that can be used for activities that suit their specific cognitive abilities, which depend
upon children’s differing sex hormone levels.
Children tend to explain toy preferences in terms of ‘what can be done with’ a specific toy in contrast to gender
appropriateness, e.g. teddies can be cuddled ad trucks can be moved by pushing.

Aims:
- To test if sex differences in children’s toy preferences result from biological factors (for example, prenatal
hormone exposure) rather than through socialization.
- To investigate if male and female rhesus monkeys have similar toy preferences to human infants, despite no
socialization experiences with human toys.

Research methodology:
Field experiment: causal relationship between the monkey’s sex and their toy preferences. The monkeys were
observed in their normal enclosure. This was a natural environment for them, as they had all been living together
at the research center for 25 years.

Controlled observation in a controlled setting: the researchers were able to control the environment by keeping
the monkeys indoors while positioning the toys. The data was collected using an observation, through analysis of
video recordings of the monkeys in their outdoor enclosure.

Sampling technique: opportunity sampling

Correlation: to test for a relationship between individual monkey’s social ranks and the frequency or duration of
activities with each type of toy.

Design and variables:

Experimental design: independent measures (where different groups of participants are exposed to different
experimental conditions, and their responses are compared) –as two groups of monkeys were compared: males
and females. The frequency and duration were measured and compared separately for each sex.

IV: Sex - naturally occurring independent variable, determined by the appearance of external sex organs.

DV: the frequency and duration of interaction with wheeled and plush toys + magnitude of preference

Materials:
Toys varied in color, size and shape. Were selected according to what you could ‘do’ with them rather than simply
choosing traditionally ‘male’ or ‘female’ toys. (We categorized our toys not by traditional gender assignment, but
by specific object properties that made our categories comparable because they hypothesized that some aspects
of sexually differentiated toy preferences reflect activity preferences).

Thus one set of toys was “wheeled,” most comparable to the masculine vehicle toys and the other was “plush,”
most comparable to the feminine doll and stuffed animal toys.

The seven plush toys were: Winnie-the-Pooh, Raggedy-Ann, a koala bear hand puppet, an armadillo, a teddy bear,
Scooby-DooTM, and a turtle. The sizes ranged in length from about 14 cm to 73 cm.

The six wheeled toys were: a wagon, a truck, a car, a construction vehicle, a shopping cart, and a dump truck.
These ranged in length from 16 to 46 cm.

Subjects:
Troop of 135 rhesus monkeys the Yerkes National Primate Research Center Field Station. Consisted of a social
structure with a full age-range of group members from infants to adults.

53 monkeys were initially excluded:

- 14 of them had previously participated in research on prenatal hormones so they were not oncluded in the
study.
- 39 babies (< 3 months) were not included as it was very hard to tell them apart, making it difficult to know
which sex they are.

This left 61 females and 21 males (82 in total) as potential subjects.

Subjects were housed with their natal group in 25 x 25m outdoor compounds with attached temperature-
controlled indoor quarters. Water was continuously available, and the animals were fed monkey chow twice daily,
supplemented once per day with fruits and vegetables. Research was conducted in accordance with the NIH Guide
for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and under an environmental enrichment/ management protocol of the
Yerkes National Primate Research Center approved by Emory's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

Procedure:
- Seven 25min trials were conducted within the large indoor/outdoor enclosure that housed the social group.
- Prior to each trial, subjects and other social group members were sequestered indoors while one wheeled and
one plush toy separated by 10m were placed in the outdoor living area, with left or right placement location
counterbalanced across trials. – Why? Counterbalancing ruled out the possibility that the monkeys preferred a
certain area of the enclosure rather than genuinely preferring the properties of the toy they found there.
- Monkeys were then released into the outdoor area and each toy and any animal interacting with it was
videotaped using separate cameras for each toy.
- In one case, a plush toy was torn into multiple pieces, ending the trial 7min early.
- After each trial, toys were removed from the outdoor area.
- The identity of every animal interacting with the toys and specific behaviors directed towards the toys were
coded from the videotapes by two observers working together to achieve consensus on both identity and
behaviors. (table below)
- Data were entered on Palm Pilots equipped with Handobs, a program designed for entering time- stamped
behavioral information. They recorded the start and finish times of each interaction and calculated the
duration (in seconds).
- Every instance of behavior was tallied to give a total frequency.
- If a behavior was continuous, duration was recorded. As the monkeys participated in different numbers of
trials, these data were divided by the number of trials, so a mean frequency and duration was calculated per
monkey.
- If a monkey showed fewer than five total behaviors, it was not used in the analysis. This was true for 3 males
and 14 females. Therefore, the final sample used for data analysis was 11 males and 23 females
- Individuals’ social rank and age were included as variables in the analyses.
- Rank had been assessed for all individuals in the group through extensive behavioral observations
documenting the directionality of grooming, dominance, and submission behavior.

Interactions with plush and wheeled objects coded from videotaped trials

Behavior Description
Extended touch Placing a hand or foot on toy
Hold Stationary support w/one or more limbs
Sit on Seated on the toy or a part of the toy
Carry in hand Moving w/toy in hand and off the ground
Carry in arm Moving w/ toy in arm and off the ground
Carry in mouth Moving w/toy in mouth and off the ground
Drag Moving the toy along the ground behind the animal
Manipulate part Moving, twisting, or turning a part
Turn entire toy Shifting 3-D orientation of toy
Touch Brief contact using hands or fingers
Sniff Coming very close to the toy with the nose
Mouth Brief oral contact – no biting or pulling
Destroy Using mouth or hands to bite or tear toy
Jump away Approach, then back away from toy with a jumping motion
Throw Project into air with hands

Data analysis: (quantitative data)

The observers calculated average frequencies and durations for each behavior by adding up the totals and dividing
by the number of trials each monkey participated in. Monkeys with fewer than 5 behaviors were discounted. Next,
the researchers calculated the total number and total duration of interactions with each toy type (plush versus
wheeled) by adding up the averages for each individual behavior.

Results – frequency of interactions:

Overall most monkeys did not interact with the toys at all. Those that did often only interacted for a few seconds,
while a small number of monkeys interacted much more and for longer periods of time.
Male monkeys preferred wheeled toys significantly (mean: 9.77) compared to plush toys (mean: 2.06)
73% of them preferred wheeled toys
9% preferred plush toys
18% showed no significant preference

Female monkeys showed no consistent preference. Although, they showed some preference for plush toys (mean:
7.97) compared to wheeled toys (mean: 6.96), the difference was not significant. There was also no significant
difference between males and females in terms of frequency of wheeled toy play.
30% of the females preferred the plush toys
39% preferred the wheeled toys
30% showed no preference for either toy

(Females with no preference ranked significantly lower in the social hierarchy than females who preferred plush
toys but there was no significant difference in rank between females who preferred wheeled vs. plush toys)

Results – duration of interactions:

- Females played with plush toys longer than males (1.49 minutes compared to 0.53 minutes).
- Overall there was no significant difference in time spent interacting with either plush toys (1.49 minutes) or
wheeled toys (1.27 minutes) for the female monkeys.
- Females showed greater individual differences in time spent engaged in plush toy play – some individuals
played longer with these toys; others interacted with them more briefly.
- Male monkeys played with wheeled toys longer than females (4.76 minutes compared to 1.27 minutes).
- Males played significantly longer with wheeled than plush toys but the standard deviation for the duration
was higher compared to the females (SD: 7.59 compared with 2.2) – which meant some of the males played
considerably longer with the wheeled toys.

Results – social rank and toy preference

There was a positive correlation between social rank (how dominant the monkeys were within the group) and
frequency of interaction for both type of toys. Higher ranking monkeys interacted more with the toys.

Rank differences were found in females only – the higher the rank, the more time females spent interacting with
plush toys. This was not true for wheeled toys.

Results – Magnitude of preference

A 'magnitude of preference' score was calculated for all monkeys. This was for both frequency and duration. For
males this was total frequency/total duration with wheeled toy minus total frequency/duration with plush toy. For
females, this was total frequency/duration with plush toy minus total frequency/total duration with wheeled toy.
These are the main results from this analysis.

• Males had a significantly higher frequency 'magnitude of preference' score compared to females.

• Males also had a significantly higher duration 'magnitude of preference' score compared to females.

Overall, males showed a significantly higher preference for the wheeled toys (seen as masculine) than females
showed for the plush toys (seen as feminine).

Conclusion:
Based on their observations and comparisons with human infants), Hassett et al. concluded that sex-typed toy
preferences in humans may result from biological sex differences, as their observations suggest that rhesus
monkeys show similar preferences to human infants, even without clear gender differences in socialization.

They concluded that human toy preferences, as with the monkeys, 'reflect hormonally influenced behavioural and
cognitive blases' which interact with learning experiences within the social environment.
 Comparison to human children
Data from this study was compared
to that reported in a study by
Berenbaum and Hines (1992), It
shows a very similar pattern of
results for monkeys as compared to
children.

Support for nurture: There are some evidences in Hasset that also support the role of nurture side of the debate
(although with smaller impact than nature). There was a positive correlation seen between the social rank of
female monkeys and time they spent with both male and female toys. Furthermore, the alpha (highest rank) male
monkey of the troop was also not interested to play with any of the toys. Thus, suggesting that preference for each
type of toy is affected by cognitive biases which interact with learning (experiences within the environment) such
as social status and rank affect the preference for each type of toy

Support for nature: Hasset is centered around the hypothesis that nature (sex) has an effect on toy preferences
of (male/female) Rhesus monkeys. The findings of this study also seem to support this prediction as without any
socialization period, the male monkeys chose masculine type toys more often than feminine type toys. Moreover,
the duration of the interaction of female monkeys with the wheeled toys was shorter when compared to males. As
this was similar result to the study by Hines done on human children previously, it can be argued that there are
common biological mechanisms such as hormones (nature) that directly affect behaviors (toy choice in this case) of
males and females across species. Female dominance is also affected by testosterone levels, which may explain
why the highranking females were equally likely to play with the trucks as the teddies, supporting the role of
nature.

Support for the individual side: There were individual differences seen in some of the rhesus monkeys and they
had to be excluded from the data analysis as they were not interested in the toys. Differences in the amount that
male monkeys played with wheeled toys (large standard deviation)

Support for the situational side: The rhesus monkeys were placed in an exciting situation with new toys. This
situation could have encouraged them to engage more with the toys and even how they played with the toys.

Applications to everyday life:

- Choosing toys for children: This study suggests that children may be drawn to certain toys due to innate
(inborn) differences in their brains, which makes some play activities more appealing than others. If children
are like monkeys, they may show preferences for certain toys over others and their skills and future talents
may be shaped by these choices. Hassett et al.’s findings suggest that boys will be drawn to toys with moving
parts. Therefore, if a parent wishes to develop skills such as empathy through imaginative play, they could
choose vehicles with expressive faces. If girls are drawn more to plush toys with faces, visuospatial skills could
be improved using toys with moving parts but presented as part of a more complex social situation – for
example, toy ambulance or school bus with sets of dolls for acting out a scene.
- The findings may also be helpful to people who design and market toys, as well as parents and other adults
when buying toys for children.
Evaluation:

Ethical issues
A strength of Hassett et al. is that ethical guidelines for working with primates were upheld. The researchers
followed the National Institutes of Health’s Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Also, research at the
Yerkes National Primate Research Center is regulated by the Emory University Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee. The monkeys were housed within their usual social groups in a 25-metre square outdoor enclosure,
with a temperature controlled indoor area. They had constant access to water, ate monkey chow twice a day and
were fed fresh fruit and vegetables every day. The procedure does not present any particular ethical issues as
these monkeys lived in captivity and would have been familiar with the keepers entering their enclosure, meaning
they were not subjected to any more stress than usual.

Reliability - Well-operationalized behavioral checklist

A strength was the use of a carefully operationalised behavioural checklist. For example, as well as the behaviour
itself (e.g. ‘sit on’), the checklist gives a description (e.g. ‘seated on the toy or a part of the toy’). This detail means
that the two independent observers should have coded behaviours in the same way, as the list is clear about
whether behaviours such as sitting half on and half off should be included or not. This improves the overall
reliability of toy preference observations made in this study.

An unexpected event!
A weakness was that the standardised procedure was abandoned on one of the trials. This occurred due to one of
the monkeys ripping apart one of the plush toys. The trial was terminated seven minutes early as the researchers
were unable to observe the monkeys’ preference for one toy type over another, as the plush toy now lay in
multiple pieces around the enclosure! As the data collection period was reduced to only 18 minutes for this trial,
the reliability of the observations of the monkeys’ toy preferences was also compromised.

Validity - The seven observational trials

One strength was that Hassett et al. collected data on seven separate 25-minute trials. Different pairs of plush and
wheeled toys were used on each trial – for example, the wagon and Winnie the PoohTM, the truck and Raggedy-
AnnTM. This increased the validity of the conclusion that males were drawn to wheeled toys in general as opposed
to one specific wheeled toy that might have been a colour or size that the monkeys particularly liked.

The use of video cameras

Another strength was the use of video cameras rather than having human observers present in the monkey
enclosure. The monkeys were used to the cameras, meaning their behavior should not have been affected by
them, whereas the presence of a human observer might have affected the spontaneity of their interactions/play.
The monkeys may have played less if they were stressed by the humans coming into the enclosure. Alternatively,
they may have played more in the hope of receiving a reward, suggesting that the cameras increased the validity
of the data recorded.

Objectivity
A further strength was the use of quantitative data. For example, the researchers recorded the duration of
individual behaviours (e.g. extended touch) in seconds. These measurements were taken using the palm pilots to
record the start and finish points of each interaction. This type of data is more objective as the researchers simply
have to calculate the average time spent interacting with each type of toy for the male monkeys compared with
the female monkeys, avoiding any subjective interpretation of the data.

Potential observer bias

A weakness was that the researchers who analysed the videotapes were both very familiar and well acquainted
with the monkeys, meaning that their knowledge of the monkey’s gender could have biased their observations. For
example, if they knew a monkey was male, they might have unintentionally coded his behaviour differently from
how they would have coded it if they believed the monkey was female. Observer bias may have increased
subjectivity, meaning that different observers who did not know the monkeys may have reached different
conclusions.

Generalising beyond the sample

The lack of adult males in the sample was a weakness. The 11 male monkeys were all either juvenile, subadult or
elderly. As toy play/interaction may be affected by social rank and age, generalisations should be made with
caution, especially as the only high-ranking male did not interact with any of the toys. Therefore, the findings can
only be generalised to lowerranking, non-adult males.

Generalising to everyday life

A weakness of this research is that it was conducted with monkeys living in captivity. Captive monkeys may show
greater interest in new objects in their territory as the lack of predators and a ready supply of food mean they may
be less fearful and have more time to play. This reduces the ecological validity of the findings, meaning it is unclear
whether wild monkeys would have behaved in the same way.