The Impact of Traditional and Robotic Toys on 3-4 Years Old’s Play

Young children’s play needs toys, which are its object support and the main tools. Character toys are of particular importance the function of which is the substitution of a character, the embodiment of a role. New technical capabilities make it possible to create complex robotic toys capable of learning, autonomous movement, and reactions to interaction with them. However, the play potential of these toys has not been sufficiently studied. The purpose of this research is to study whether young children (3-4 years old) will play with a robot toy and whether this play will differ from playing with ordinary character toys. The work of P. Kahn et al. was used as the methodological basis of this research. The study included observing a play with two types of toys – a robotic and a stuffed dinosaur, a structured interview, and a classification of cards. The sample consisted of 30 children attending a state kindergarten. The results showed that children are significantly less likely and more monotonous to play with a robotic toy than with a traditional one. At the same time, they interact more with a robotic toy, study it more and are afraid of it as a living being. The results obtained allow us to raise the question of the category of this type of toy: they belong to robots but not to character toys.

1. Ryabkova I.A., Sheina E.G. Rolevoe zameshchenie doshkol'nikov v igre s obraznymi igrushkami [Role Substitution in Preschoolers’ Play with Toy Characters]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2021. Vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 41–50. DOI:10.17759/pse.2021260102 (In Russ.).

2. Ryabkova I.A., Sheina E.G., Smirnova S.Yu. Detskaya igrushka v sovremennykh psikhologicheskikh issledovaniyakh [Children's toy in modern psychological research]. Voprosy psikhologii [Issues of psychology], 2021. Vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 147‒156. (In Russ.).

3. Sergienko E.A., Lebedeva E.I., Prusakova O.A. Model' psikhicheskogo kak osnova stanovleniya ponimaniya sebya i drugogo v ontogeneze cheloveka [Theory of mind in human ontogenesis]. Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN Publ., 2009. 415 p. (In Russ.).

4. Smirnova E.O., Filippova I.V. Obraznaya igrushka kak sredstvo razvitiya soznaniya doshkol'nika [Character toy as consciousness development tool of a preschool child]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2008. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 62–71. (In Russ.).

5. Cameron D. et al. You made him be alive: Children’s perceptions of animacy in a humanoid robot. In M. Mangan, M. Cutkosky, A. Mura, P. Verschure, T. Prescott, N. Lepora (eds.). Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems. Living Machines. Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 73‒85. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-63537-8_7

6. Fein G. Pretend play in childhood: An integrative review. Child Development, 1981. Vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1095‒1118. DOI:10.2307/1129497

7. Fernaeus Y. et al. How do you play with a robotic toy animal? A long-term study of Pleo. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010, pp. 39–48. DOI:10.1145/1810543.1810549

8. Hashmi S. et al. Exploring the benefits of doll play through neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2020. Vol. 14. DOI:10.3389/fnhum.2020.560176

9. Hashmi S. et al. Doll play prompts social thinking and social talking: Representations of internal state language in the brain. Developmental Science, 2022. Vol. 25, no. 2. DOI:10.1111/desc.13163

10. Johnson S.C., Booth A., O'Hearn K. Inferring the goals of a nonhuman agent. Cognitive development, 2001. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 637–656. DOI:10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00043-0

11. Kahn P.H. et al. Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. Interaction Studies, 2006. Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 405–436. DOI:10.1075/is.7.3.13kah

12. Kim M., Yi S., Lee D. Between living and nonliving: Young children’s animacy judgments and reasoning about humanoid robots. PLOS ONE, 2019. Vol. 14, no. 6. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0216869

13. Melson G.F. Child development robots: Social forces, children's perspectives. Interaction Studies, 2010. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 227‒232. DOI:10.1075/is.11.2.08mel

14. Melson G.F. et al. Children's behavior toward and understanding of robotic and living dogs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2009. Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 92‒102. DOI:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.10.011

15. Moerman C.J., Jansens R.M. Using social robot PLEO to enhance the well-being of hospitalised children. Journal of Child Health Care, 2021. Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 412‒426. DOI:10.1177/1367493520947503

16. Okita S.Y., Schwartz D.L. Young children's understanding of animacy and entertainment robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 2006. Vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 393–412. DOI:10.1142/S0219843606000795

17. Saylor M.M. et al. How do young children deal with hybrids of living and non-living things: The case of humanoid robots. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2010. Vol. 28, pp. 835‒851. DOI:10.1348/026151009X481049

18. Sung J. How young children and their mothers experience two different types of toys: A traditional stuffed toy versus an animated digital toy. Child Youth Care Forum, 2018. Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 233–257. DOI:10.1007/s10566-017-9428-8

19. Torpegaard J. et al. Preschool children’s social and playful interactions with a play-facilitating cardboard robot. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2022. Vol. 31. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100435

20. Turkle S. et al. Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship. Connection Science, 2006. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 347‒361. DOI:10.1080/09540090600868912

21. Yamada-Rice D. Designing play: Young children’s play and communication practices in relation to designers’ intentions for their toy. Global Studies of Childhood, 2018. Vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 5‒22. DOI:10.1177/2043610618764228