Turner and Goldsmith’s hypothesis is based upon the classical conditioning model where toys become
associated with aggressive behaviour, primarily because the objects have been seen on television in an aggressive context. Subsequent exposure to the toys then elicits aggressive behaviour.
In their study, 10 subjects were aged 4-5 years. There were 7 boys and 3 girls. The children’s play was observed for 30 minutes over 16 days. On days
1,2,4,5,6,11,12 and 17 the children played with their usual toys, with toy guns on days 1,7,9,10,13 and 14, and with toy airplanes on days 15 and 16. Two
observers (inter-observer reliability was 75%)
b e h a v i o u r displayed by e a c h child. The m a t i c
agg r e s s i o n was not r e c o r d e d as a n t i s o c i a l behaviour.
T u r n e r and G o l dsmith rep o r t an i n c rease in antisocial b e h a v i o u r in the toy gun condition. No increase in antiso c i a l behaviour o c c u r e d in the o t h e r conditions. They conclude that toy guns int r o d u c e a g g r e s s i v e play themes, increasing the l i k e l i h o o d of o t h e r a ggression occurring. The findings a p p e a r t o p r o v i d e support for the classical c o n d i t i o n i n g and a s s o c i a t i v e p r i m i n g a s pects of learning theory.
This study has b een c r i t i c i s e d b y J e n v e y (1988) on the basis that only a few c h i l d r e n are observed
(n=10) and that sex d i f f e r e n c e s are n o t considered. S u t t o n - S m i t h (1988) points out that t h e actual number of aggressive acts c a r r i e d out in the toy gun
c o n d i t i o n was only 1 p e r 30 minutes, t h e difference in a g gression b e t w e e n the groups is trivial.
Furthermore, S u t t o n - S m i t h (1988) argues that the o b s ervers were not blind, that is the y knew the
hypothesis. There is also m u c h p r e j u d i c e against toy weapons. He claims that this study was p u b lished b e c a u s e it ’confirmed the p r e j udices of the
A further criticism of the Turner and Goldsmith study is made by Connor (1989) who points out the problem of bringing toy guns into school. If toy guns are usually banned from school then their presence is likely to elicit behaviour which is unrepresentative of play behaviours in the home. Also, the provision of toy guns in school may give implicit permission for aggressive play.
Turner and Goldsmith did not account for individual differences in aggression. Connor (1989) states that
1 or 2 aggressive children in a sample gives the impression of an increase in aggression in the whole group. Aggressive children are also most likely to behave aggressively with aggressive toys. It is
therefore necessary to control for individual levels of aggression.
Despite criticisms, Turner and G o l dsmith’s study is more rigorously designed than many others. For
example, they carefully distinguished between appropriate and inappropriate aggression and
manipulated the presentation order of the toys. It would appear that, for some young children, guns act
as cues to elicit previously learned aggressive behaviour. Assessment of individual differences in
a g g r e s s i o n is r e q u i r e d to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h c h i l d r e n are m ost likely to be i n f l u e n c e d by toy guns.
MENDOZA 1912
M e n d o z a looked at the e f f e c t of ’toys c o n d u c i v e to v i o l e n c e ’ on forty 5-6 year o l d boys a n d girls. The subjects wer e r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d to one of 8 groups (N= 5 per group). F o u r groups w e r e p r e sented w i t h aggressive toys (G.I.Joe, guns, tanks, toy soldiers and daggers) and the r e m a i n i n g four groups p l a y e d w i t h n o n - a g g r e s s i v e toys (baby dolls, tea set, trains, fire engines, d octors kits and K e n dolls). The c h i l d r e n ’s b e h a v i o u r w i t h the toys was observed. Ag g r e s s i v e b e haviours r e c o r d e d inc l u d e d biting,
kicking, name-calling, hitting, p r e t e n d i n g and
t h r e a t e n i n g to kill a n o t h e r o r oneself. Information about the duration of o b s e r v a t i o n and in t e r - o b s e r v e r r e l i a b i l i t y is not available.
M e n d o z a reports that c h i l d r e n who p l a y e d w i t h the a g g r e s s i v e toys were more a g g r e s s i v e t h a n the chi l d r e n who played w i t h the n o n - a g g r e s s i v e toys. T h e r e was no c a r r y - o v e r effect, a g g r e s s i o n returned to b a s eline once the toys w e r e removed. Men d o z a co n c l u d e d that a ggressive t oys eli c i t aggressive
behaviours.
A fundamental problem of this study is M e n d o z a ’s lack of distinction between appropriate and inappropriate aggression. All aggressive incidents were classified as ’r e a l ’ aggression. Furthermore, she did not assess the baseline aggression level of the children
beforehand to ensure that there was an equal distribution of aggressiveness in each group.