How Girls and Boys Play

mmadsen

First Post
I'm sure many folks here are at least casual fans of Lego and may know that Lego has come up with a line of products aimed at girls. They didn't just make everything pink; they sent out cultural anthropologists to research how girls and boys around the world play, and some of their findings may overlap with our own hobby:
During ’05 and ’06, the Lego “anthros,” as the research teams have been called, discovered some underappreciated cultural gaps. The idea of creative play as conducive to learning, or even formal education, is an article of faith at Lego that goes back to its founder, who defended his decision to become a toymaker during the Great Depression by pointing out that all animals use play to develop their brains. In Japan, however, Lego found that study and play were more clearly delineated. Few Japanese parents bought Lego, as they do in Germany or the U.S., because they were “toys with vitamins in them,” as Lego senior director Søren Holm only half-jokingly puts it.

American boys, meanwhile, turned out to be the least free of any group Lego tracked. British and German boys are far more likely to play unsupervised in yards and wooded areas and even have greater latitude in decorating their bedroom walls. Among slightly older American boys, 9 to 12, building with Lego represented a rare chance to be left alone. (On one subject, boys of all ages and nationalities agreed: A castle without a dragon is worse than no castle at all.)

Lego won’t say how much it spent on its anthropology, but research went on for months and shattered many of the assumptions that had led the company astray. You could say a worn-out sneaker saved Lego. “We asked an 11-year-old German boy, ‘what is your favorite possession?’ And he pointed to his shoes. But it wasn’t the brand of shoe that made them special,” says Holm, who heads up the Lego Concept Lab, its internal skunkworks. “When we asked him why these were so important to him, he showed us how they were worn on the side and bottom, and explained that his friends could tell from how they were worn down that he had mastered a certain style of riding, even a specific trick.”

The skate maneuvers had taken hours and hours to perfect, defying the consensus that modern kids don’t have the attention span to stick with painstaking challenges, especially during playtime. To compete with the plug-and-play quality of computer games, Lego had been dumbing down its building sets, aiming for faster “builds” and instant gratification. From the German skateboarder onward, Lego saw it had drawn the wrong lessons from computer games. Instead of focusing on their immediacy, the company now noticed how kids responded to the scoring, ranking, and levels of play—opportunities to demonstrate mastery. So while it didn’t take a genius or months of research to realize it might be a good idea to bring back the police station or fire engine that are at the heart of Lego’s most popular product line (Lego City), the “anthros” informed how the hook-and-ladder or motorcycle cop should be designed, packaged, and rolled out.

Encouraged by what it had learned about boys, Lego sent its team back out to scrutinize girls, starting in 2007. The company was surprised to learn that in their eyes, Lego suffered from an aesthetic deficit. “The greatest concern for girls really was beauty,” says Hanne Groth, Lego’s market research manager. Beauty, on the face of it, is an unsurprising virtue for a girl-friendly toy, but based on the ways girls played, Groth says, it came, as “mastery” had for boys, to stand for fairly specific needs: harmony (a pleasing, everything-in-its-right-place sense of order); friendlier colors; and a high level of detail.

“It was an education,” recalls Fenella Blaize Holden, an under-30 British designer, on the process of getting Lego Friends made. “No one could understand, why do we need more than one handbag? So I’d have to say, well, is one sword enough for the knights, or is it better to have a dagger, too? And then they’d come around.”

Lego confirmed that girls favor role-play, but they also love to build—just not the same way as boys. Whereas boys tend to be “linear”—building rapidly, even against the clock, to finish a kit so it looks just like what’s on the box—girls prefer “stops along the way,” and to begin storytelling and rearranging. Lego has bagged the pieces in Lego Friends boxes so that girls can begin playing various scenarios without finishing the whole model. Lego Friends also introduces six new Lego colors—including Easter-egg-like shades of azure and lavender. (Bright pink was already in the Lego palette.)

Then there are the lady figures. Twenty-nine mini-doll figures will be introduced in 2012, all 5 millimeters taller and curvier than the standard dwarf minifig. There are five main characters. Like American Girl Dolls, which are sold with their own book-length biographies, these five come with names and backstories. Their adventures have a backdrop: Heartlake City, which has a salon, a horse academy, a veterinary clinic, and a café. “We had nine nationalities on the team to make certain the underlying experience would work in many cultures,” says Nanna Ulrich Gudum, senior creative director.

The key difference between girls and the ladyfig and boys and the minifig was that many more girls projected themselves onto the ladyfig—she became an avatar. Boys tend to play with minifigs in the third person. “The girls needed a figure they could identify with, that looks like them,” says Rosario Costa, a Lego design director. The Lego team knew they were on to something when girls told them, “I want to shrink down and be there.”

The Lego Friends team is aware of the paradox at the heart of its work: To break down old stereotypes about how girls play, it risks reinforcing others. “If it takes color-coding or ponies and hairdressers to get girls playing with Lego, I’ll put up with it, at least for now, because it’s just so good for little girls’ brains,” says Lise Eliot. A neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in Chicago, Eliot is the author of Pink Brain Blue Brain, a 2009 survey of hundreds of scientific papers on gender differences in children. “Especially on television, the advertising explicitly shows who should be playing with a toy, and kids pick up on those cues,” Eliot says. “There is no reason to think Lego is more intrinsically appealing to boys.”

Maybe not, but even Knudstorp acknowledges that Lego’s girl problem will be hard to conquer.​
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Interesting, though some of the findings seem obviously self-contradictory. That is to be expected though in the fields of soft sciences.
 


Interesting, though some of the findings seem obviously self-contradictory. That is to be expected though in the fields of soft sciences.

That seems kind of an odd comment to make without pointing out which parts you are referring to. As it is, I feel I should say, " Dude: particle theory vs. wave theory. "
 

That seems kind of an odd comment to make without pointing out which parts you are referring to. As it is, I feel I should say, " Dude: particle theory vs. wave theory. "

Kaodi, you might have misunderstood my statement. I have nothing against the soft sciences. I spent quite a few years as a psychologist, an analyst, and a detective/criminologist. The soft sciences are people, and therefore much harder to quantify, than to qualify. Though sometimes they are very hard to qualify as well.

I was merely making an observation. Self-contradiction is common with people (individually and in large groups), they are often paradoxes. Or at least seem that way often times.

That's okay by me. Just part of the game.

My observation was not intended to be disparaging, merely an acknowledgement that people are not things and therefore behavior is tough to analyze for predictive results. I am just aware of the limitations of soft sciences to accurately predict complex behavior.
 

hmm. I grew up on legoes. So much so, that even in pre-school, they actually complained to my mom that all I played with was legos. She pointed out that I was building every other toy possible with the legos.

As such, my observation from the findings is:

the Japs are idiots. Legos encourage engineering skills. Of all the toys to hand your kid, a box of legos is on the top of the list.

Not that the Japanese are slackers in the engineering department, but the Germans also rock at that point. Imagine if the Japs hadn't been so foolish to turn down the education toy, in favor of what? Transformers?

I was building transformers out of Legos the moment I saw my first transformer toy. Figuring out how to build the articulation from very basic lego pieces was part of the challenge.

As to their observation that the quick build kits were crap, Duh! The value of the product was the work it took to build someething. Additionally, the engineering possible because you build big things from little things meant you had that granularity availble for custom projects. Big components limit that option almost as bad as those DuPlo blocks.

The whole movement that kids can't pay attention anymore is monkey crap. They don't want to pay attention in school. Every ADD kid I've heard of seems perfectly fine sitting at a computer or console for hours at a time. The problem ain't inability to pay attention. Genuine ADD exists I'm sure, but if yer kid exhibits the ability to focus on HIS interests, he ain't got ADD.

It was surprising about the skate board kid. I would not have thought kids are observant enough of details to denote wear and tear to its mastery of a trick. Particularly given the life-cycle of a kid shoe is so short that it would be impossible for it to be displayed for more than a year.

As to the contrast of american kids to european kids on roaming outdoors and decorating rooms, I would have thought that was the reverse.

While in the current century, I've met parents who were more restrictive on the roaming of their kids, generally, Americans are notorious for letting their kids roam until dark and letting them kill each other with homemade bows and arrows in the vacant lot.
 

hmm. I grew up on legoes. So much so, that even in pre-school, they actually complained to my mom that all I played with was legos. She pointed out that I was building every other toy possible with the legos.

As such, my observation from the findings is:

the Japs are idiots. Legos encourage engineering skills. Of all the toys to hand your kid, a box of legos is on the top of the list.

Not that the Japanese are slackers in the engineering department, but the Germans also rock at that point. Imagine if the Japs hadn't been so foolish to turn down the education toy, in favor of what? Transformers?
When I was a kid, I used to build my own Transformers out of Legos. You had to take them apart to transform, but they worked! :)

Legos are the greatest toy ever invented, just like role-playing games are the greatest game-form ever invented.
 

I got my first Legos as a 7 year old American living in Germany. I never built the kits. I just bought the kits based on what shapes and colors they offered so I could build my own stuff. For instance, there was a crane/truck kit that had a hinged piece for the range or tow bar assembly. I used it to make my version of an X-wing/Viper/Starfighter.

I gave them away when I left for college. I was an IDIOT.

I regret giving away those as much as my Micronauts and my (well-intentioned) Gramma giving away my toy cars.

That trinity of toys were the source of so many ridiculous hours of creative play that if I EVER have kids of my own, I'm buying a crapload of 'em (or their equivalents) before the kiddies reach their 1st birthdays.

If the (future) spouse objects, I may be forced to rent some storage...*










* I am quite brave when there are no women around to tell me what to do.
 
Last edited:

Kaodi, you might have misunderstood my statement. I have nothing against the soft sciences. I spent quite a few years as a psychologist, an analyst, and a detective/criminologist. The soft sciences are people, and therefore much harder to quantify, than to qualify. Though sometimes they are very hard to qualify as well.

I was merely making an observation. Self-contradiction is common with people (individually and in large groups), they are often paradoxes. Or at least seem that way often times.

That's okay by me. Just part of the game.

My observation was not intended to be disparaging, merely an acknowledgement that people are not things and therefore behavior is tough to analyze for predictive results. I am just aware of the limitations of soft sciences to accurately predict complex behavior.

Or, you could have just pointed out the contradictions. Like he asked for. That would have been helpful.
 

While in the current century, I've met parents who were more restrictive on the roaming of their kids, generally, Americans are notorious for letting their kids roam until dark and letting them kill each other with homemade bows and arrows in the vacant lot.

I suspect their quantitative data is more accurate than your impression, though. A society that worries about other parents "letting them kill each other with homemade bows and arrows in the vacant lot" is likely to be a society where many parents DON'T let their kids do that.
 

Remove ads

Top