Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Toys representing disability are now commercially available, yet there has been limited exploration of parental perspectives on these toys. This study explored parents’ and carers’ views of toys that represented disability through a pre-registered online survey of N = 83 parents of children aged between 0 and 14 years old. In a repeated measures design, parents viewed images of commercially available toys. We measured their child’s previous direct contact with a disabled person, their perceived likelihood that their child would enjoy playing with that toy, and parents’ open-ended views on why they thought their child would or would not enjoy that toy. We found that significantly more parents of older disabled children and younger non-disabled children thought their child would choose to play with representative dolls. Open-ended responses indicated that this finding may have occurred because parents of disabled children (vs non-disabled children) valued the representation afforded by the toys. In this way, we show that parents value representation and accessibility particularly when they are a parent of a disabled child themselves. Our study highlights when parents may bring disability-representative toys into the toy box in ways that promote inclusion.

Keywords

Inclusion disability children representative toys

Introduction

Disabled¹ children have a significantly higher chance of being excluded from play than children who do not have a disability (e.g., Mulvey et al., 2020). Current psychological research focuses on how such exclusion may be reduced. One way of doing this is through play and imagination. That is, by encouraging children to imagine positive interactions with disabled children, it has been found that non-disabled children’s intentions towards them become more positive (e.g., Birtel et al., 2019). At the same time, there has been a relative lack of representation of disability in the toy market, making such imagined interactions less likely, and potentially further fueling children’s play-based exclusion (e.g., O’Neill et al., 2018). It is parents who provide most of the toys with which their children choose to play and, as shopping moves online they do so increasingly without consulting their children (Richards et al. 2020). However, relatively little is known about parents’ views of the value of toys that represent disability. For this reason, our study aims to explore parental views of these toys; the likelihood that parents perceive that their children would like and want to play with them, now that they are commercially available. We further aimed to examine whether and why parents think toys representing disability are important and differences between parents of disabled and non-disabled children in these views.

Reducing prejudice and promoting inclusion

The relative absence of disability in many children’s worlds goes in tandem with a high level of bullying targeted at children with impairments. Internationally, school-aged disabled children often encounter name-calling, rejection, and exclusion from non-disabled peers (Kayama and Haight, 2014). Mulvey et al. (2020) suggest children with disabilities can often be a target of bias-based bullying. Bias-based bullying is bullying linked to the prejudiced beliefs the individual holds, often targeted towards a minoritized group. This can also lead to children with an impairment being socially excluded. In this vein, Weiner et al. (2013) explored 812 deaf 8–18 year-olds’ perspectives of bullying. The researchers found that deaf children were 2–3 times more likely to be a target of bullying compared to hearing children. Moreover, the research shows that this type of bullying leads to emotional and psychological trauma (e.g., Rose et al., 2013) and additionally, disabled children who are targeted in this way may have fewer friends (Farmer et al., 2015) and develop externalizing symptoms over time (e.g., Wright, 2020). Thus, it is imperative to find ways to reduce prejudice towards disabled people.

Inclusion through representation

Before encountering negative views at school, disabled children often experience exclusion from society due to barriers that limit their ability to reach their full potential—and indeed their ability to voice their experiences of exclusion (e.g., Koller et al., 2018; Stanton-Chapman and Schmidt, 2017). From the perspective of disabled children, inclusion means feeling accepted and being able to actively engage both in their school and in the wider community (Vetoniemi and Kärnä, 2021). This sense of acceptance and community engagement is in line with affirmative models of disability that look forward to a society that celebrates difference and values all people (Swain and French, 2000). The affirmative model then, as well as calling for environmental and attitudinal change, puts forward a positive collective identity for disabled people. One key way to affirm disabled people’s identity, and to promote inclusion for disabled children is through representation (Jones et al., 2022). Representation, in this sense, involves disabled children seeing themselves through “mirrors” represented in various aspects of life, such as media and occupations, which gives them a sense of belonging (e.g., Style, 1996). One way of achieving that representation is through the world of toys. In other words, toys can be used as a strategy to encourage the inclusion of disabled children.

Learning through play with dolls representing disability

Toys that represent disability might also benefit non-disabled children. Specifically, dolls may offer an insight into how children might include their disabled peers in play. Tekerci and Kogar (2021) used five dolls that were made for their study, and had a persona, representing five disabilities. The study involved 68 children between the ages of 3–5 years who were tested before and after participation in a disability-positivity intervention. Content analysis was used to analyze children’s responses to the dolls. The results showed that children were able to describe the disability associated with each doll. Furthermore, post-intervention, most children in the 4 and 5-year age group, accepted all the dolls as their play friends with justifications such as relating to the doll being able to join in in a different way. In other words, dolls helped children to imagine the inclusion of a disabled peer.

In spite of the benefits of doll play, and in particular of dolls that represent disability, historically, marketing toys representing disability has not gone well. In the 1990s Mattel released “Share-a-Smile Becky,” who was a bright pink wheelchair user. However, she was discontinued, as her wheelchair would not fit into Barbie’s DreamHouse (e.g., O’Neill et al., 2018). Share-a-Smile Becky was followed by “I’m the school photographer Becky” and then Sign Language “I Love You Becky” and “Paralympic Becky.” After getting several re-generations, Becky was discontinued in 2017 (Hitselberger, 2017). This, alongside the fact that it was Becky, and not Barbie, who was disabled, shows that barriers that affect disabled people in the real world can also be seen in the toy industry (Ahmed et al., 2020). In 2019, Mattel reintroduced a Barbie who is a wheelchair user: she now sits amid an ever-expanding array of dolls that represent disability among major toy manufacturers (Ahmed et al., 2020). Accordingly, and noting the importance of these dolls as mirrors and windows for a sense of belonging, we sought to explore parental views and children’s interactions with these toys—and what other benefits may be perceived in acquiring and playing with them.

When might doll play be beneficial? The role of contact

Contact Theory is attributed to Allport (1954), who initially proposed that fostering positive interpersonal interactions could mitigate existing prejudice between the so-called “ingroup” (the social group an individual identifies with) and the so-called “outgroup” (the social group they do not identify with). To achieve positive outcomes, Allport indicated that such contact should facilitate genuine acquaintance and opportunities for knowledge exchange. This form of contact allows members of both groups to understand each other better, revealing shared similarities (Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008). Extensive research has explored Allport’s Contact Theory, demonstrating that direct contact is effective in reducing prejudice and fostering positive attitudes towards various “outgroups,” as highlighted in a meta-analysis by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006). This impact extends to children’s attitudes towards disabled peers, as evidenced by systematic reviews of both naturally occurring contact (MacMillan et al., 2014) and experimentally induced contact (Lindsay and Edwards, 2013). Moreover, Armstrong et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis indicated that interventions incorporating direct contact exert a moderate influence on attitudes. This is relevant because past research by Jones et al. (2020) of 326 parents of disabled and non-disabled children showed that children’s direct contact with disabled people is also linked to parental views of disabled toy prototypes. For this reason, we measured through parents, the extent to which non-disabled and disabled children had contact with disabled children.

Parental views

Previous research on play opportunities for children with impairments has mainly focused on the perspectives of children and teachers (e.g., Fahy et al., 2021). The views of parents and caregivers, however, have been largely overlooked. This is despite research that shows that adults, and the social groups to which they belong, and with whom they identify, can influence doll choice (e.g., Mishna and Bakry, 2021). One exception is Jones et al. (2020) who obtained parents’ views of prototype toys which represented children with a disability via a survey. Parents with and without a child (aged 4–10 years) with a disability, took part in the study. The researchers found parents that had a disabled child were more likely to say their child would befriend a disabled child than non-disabled children. However, parents who stated that they had a non-disabled child were more likely to state that their child would choose to play with a toy that represented a disability and were more likely to discuss disability with their child in general. The study showed that toys may be a valuable tool to promote positive intentions towards disabled people. However, since this study, the toy market has changed and there are now toys representing disabilities available to buy. For this reason, the current research project explored parents’ views on toys that represent disabilities that are available to purchase.

Present study

In summary, it may be argued that one way to help children feel included is through seeing disability represented in their toys, although relatively few commercial toys are available (e.g., Jones et al., 2020). Past research on parental views has also showed that contact with disabled children affects parental views of toys that represent disability but has largely focused on visible disabilities. For the above reasons, we examined parental views on toys representing both visible and invisible disabilities. We surveyed parents and carers who identified that their child has an impairment, and those who have a non-disabled child. The views of parents and caregivers were explored through an online survey, as these provide easy access and can reach a large target audience (Dominelli, 2003). The survey included both open-ended and closed-ended questions, we were able to gather both qualitative and numerical data (Richards and Hemphill, 2018). We hypothesized that parents of disabled children would be more positive towards the toys representing disability than parents of children without a disability. We also hypothesized that contact with disabled children would moderate (accentuate) the likelihood that parents would report intentions for their children to play with these toys. Since a vast amount of research (e.g., Haertter, 2021) has shown that gender and age are important in toy choice for disabled and non-disabled children, we accounted for children’s age and gender in our research.

Method

The study’s methodology and analysis plan were pre-registered on the open science framework (ref removed for author identification) to promote transparency in psychological research findings (Schwab and Starbuck, 2017).

Design

The study sought views from parents whose child either had an impairment or not. Parents and carers were asked if they believed their child would play with a series of dolls that represented a child with a disability. The parental responsibility of our participants for a disabled child or for a non-disabled child, the sex of the child (male vs female) and the doll type (a Mia Lottie Doll and Barbie Fashionista #165 with a Wheelchair and Barbie Fashionista #121 with a prosthetic limb and Hayden Finn doll) varied. All parents were asked about all of the dolls. The study assessed the parents’ report of the child’s previous interaction with disabled people and the parents’ and carers’ views on representative toys.

Participants

Using a convenience sampling method, 83 participants voluntarily participated in the study, which was advertised by the researchers on their social media and shared by the not-for-profit company Toy Like Me on Facebook from February 2021 to December 2021. In addition, psychology and early education students from a UK university were recruited to participate in the study for course credit. All participants were 18 years or older and had a child aged 4–14 years. Forty-seven of the children were male, 35 were female, and one did not specify their child’s gender. Forty-eight children were reported to not have a disability and 35 children were reported to have a disability. The age range was selected because it is the age when children are most likely to play with dolls (Moore and Lynch, 2015). In terms of ethnicity, 86.4% of the parents identified as Scottish or from a white background, 11.6% were from a non-white or non-Scottish background, and 1.9% preferred not to state. The study was approved by the Psychology and Sociology Ethics Department at a UK university. All participants provided informed consent.

Materials and procedure

Participants accessed the 30-min survey through an online link on Qualtrics. First, the parents and carers were given an information sheet about the survey, followed by an online consent form. Second, the parents and carers answered the questions as described below.

Previous contact with a child who has a disability

The study measured the parents’ and carers’ views on their child’s previous interaction with disabled people. They were asked seven contact questions using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (most days), after Jones et al. (2020). The questions were: “My child has watched a television program depicting a child with an impairment,” “My child has met a family member with a physical impairment,” “My child has watched a television program depicting an adult with a physical impairment,” “My child has met a local child with a physical impairment,” “My child has met a local adult with a physical impairment,” “I have talked to my child about impairments and disabilities,” and “I encourage my child to ask questions about impairments and disabilities”. (Jones et al., 2022) The 7-item scale had a reliability score of Cronbach’s alpha α = .751.

Views on toys

In line with Jones et al. (2020) parents were then asked their opinion of how much they agreed their child would play with each doll which had an impairment. The questions were answered by rating a Likert-type scale ranging from 5–“strongly agree to 1-strongly disagree; “My child would like to play with this toy,” “My child would actively choose to play with this toy” and “My child has played with this doll”. Jones et al. (2020) These items scaled to give a reliability score of Cronbach’s alphas between .708 and = 0.768. Images of the dolls can be seen below in Figure 1(a).

Figure 1.

Dolls used in Study 1.

Figure 2.

(a) Simple slopes of the relation between Propensity to play with Mia and Contact as a function of Parental Responsibility. (b) Simple slopes of the relation between Propensity to play with Barbie Fashionista # 165 using a wheelchair, and Contact as a function of Parental Responsibility.

Open question: Finally, parents were asked the following open-ended question about the dolls that depicted a disability/impairment: “Can you say any more about why (or why not) your child would like to play with any of the toys depicted above?”

Results

The means and relationships between variables can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Correlations Between Key Variables for Study 1.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Mean	--	7.43	--	2.68	3.00	3.02	2.86	3.33
SD	--	3.69	--	0.83	1.11	1.12	1.03	0.96
1 Sex of child	--
2 Age of child	.025	--
3. Disability of child	.046	−.021	--
4. Previous contact	−.143	.448**	−.028	--
5. Mia the Wildlife Photographer Lottie doll	.252*	−.091	−.186	.042	--
6. Barbie Fashionista # 165	.278*	−.093	−.193	.053	.882**	--
7. Barbie Fashionista # 121	.328**	−.111	−.224*	.056	.763**	.849*	--
8. Hayden the Loyal companion Finn doll	.254*	−.189	−.204	.057	.616**	.587**	.617**	--

Note. * significant at p = .050, ** = significant at p = .010 *** = significant at p = .001 (two-tailed), Sex: 0 = boy, 1 = girl; Disability of Child 1 = disabled, 0 = non-disabled = 1.

Our qualitative analysis (reported below) indicated that sex and age played a role in toy responses. For this reason, we added sex and age to our quantitative analyses in an exploratory way. Using PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2018) we entered Parental Responsibility (For a Disabled Child vs For a Non-Disabled Child) as the independent variable and Contact with Disabled People as the Moderator, as predictors of Propensity to Play with each of the dolls, in turn. Sex and Age were entered as covariates.

Mia the wildlife photographer Lottie doll (with a cochlear implant)

This analysis revealed a significant regression model, R^{2 change} = 0.065, F (5,63) = 3.43, p = .008, and significant moderation of Contact on Parental Responsibility’s prediction of Propensity to Play, B = 0.7786, SE = 0.3403, p = .0255, LLCI = 0.0986, ULCI = 1.4586. This effect is displayed in Figure 1(a). The moderation effect occurred because the simple slope for parental responsibility for non-disabled children was significantly steeper than the slope for parental responsibility for disabled children, t(79) = 6.27, p < .001.

Barbie Fashionista # 165 (using a wheelchair)

This analysis revealed significant regression model, R^{2 change} = 0.0504, F (5,63) = 4.07, p = .003, and significant moderation of Contact on Parental Responsibility’s prediction of Propensity to Play, B = 0.6822, SE = 0.3330, p = .0446, LLCI = 0.0168, ULCI = 1.3476. This effect is displayed in Figure 1(c). The moderation effect occurred because the simple slope for parental responsibility for non-disabled children was significantly steeper than the slope for disabled children, t(79) = 5.49, p < .001.

Barbie Fashionista # 121 (with a prosthetic limb)

This analysis reveals significant regression model, R^{2 change} = 0.2034, F (5,62) = 4.65, p = .0131, and a significant effect of Parental Responsibility’s prediction of Propensity to Play, B = −0.4871, SE = 0.2343, p = .0418, LLCI = −0.9554, ULCI = −0.0187. This effect occurred because where there was Parental Responsibility for a disabled child, parents thought their child would play with the doll more than when there was parental responsibility for a non-disabled child, F(1, 62) = 6.34, p = .014, Ms = 3.13 and 2.52, respectively. Gender was a significant covariate, B = 0.8857, SE = 0.2491, p = .0007, LLCI = 0.3878, ULCI 1.3836, because parental responsibility for females was linked to higher play propensity.

Hayden, the loyal companion Finn Doll (who is autistic)

This analysis revealed a significant regression model, R^{2 change} = 0.0432, F (5,62) = 4.65, p = .0011, and a significant effect of Parental Responsibility’s prediction of Propensity to Play, B = −0.6075, SE = 0.2414, p = .014, LLCI = −1.0900, ULCI = −0.1250. This effect occurred because where there was Parental Responsibility for a disabled child, parents thought their child would play with the doll more than when there was parental responsibility for a non-disabled child, F(1, 62) = 4.32, p = .042, Ms = 3.58 and 3.09 respectively. Gender was a significant covariate, B = 0.5622, SE = 0.2418, p = .0233, LLCI = 0.0789, ULCI = 1.0456, because parental responsibility for females was linked to higher play propensity.

Qualitative findings

We used reflexive thematic analysis (TA) to analyze our qualitative results. TA can be considered a flexible approach to analyzing qualitative data (Clarke and Braun 2017). Furthermore, Braun and Clarke (2020) outline in their article that reflective TA can be used with a deductive approach: “Using reflexive TA deductively means existing research and theory provide the lens through which we analyze and interpret data. Narrowly, this might mean exploring evidence for themes identified in previous research”(p. 331) Contemporary researchers have successfully used a deductive approach to TA such as Sinclair-Maragh and Bernard Simpson (2021). In this way, we used a solely deductive approach to reflexive TA based on previous research findings. This is because we made assumptions about what we expected to find in line with research on representative toys conducted by and therefore chose reflexive TA as it can be utilized when using a deductive approach (Braun and Clarke, 2020).

Parents were asked the following open-ended question about the dolls that depicted a disability/impairment: “Can you say any more about why (or why not) your child would like to play with any of the toys depicted above?”

Sixty-nine parents gave a response to the toy question which included 31 parents who had a disabled child. Reflexive TA was used to analyze the generated qualitative toy data (Braun and Clarke, 2020). Parents’ answers to this question were coded on a Word document. The length of the answers given by parents ranged from a few words to a paragraph. Then the researcher looked for any key themes in the answers. One key theme was “representation.” Parents of children with a disability appreciated seeing toys that represented their child’s disability and other kinds of disabilities:

“It represents her in play, who doesn’t want to see someone or something they have a connection with” (Parent of girl aged 12 with a disability).

“He loves dogs and little people characters. He is used to seeing people in chairs and with disabilities in school so real-life toys should include that” (Parent of boy aged 10 with a disability: hearing impairment non-verbal).

In general, most parents, whether their child had a disability or not, were positive about the dolls. However, parents of boys were most likely to say their child would not play with the dolls due to either a gender or age issue.

“My son would not choose the more female focussed toys to play with, but choose the ones that offer a wider play opportunity like the doll with the dog” (Parent of boy aged 10 with a disability).

“Most are dolls which he would think are more for girls, and he'd consider himself too old” (Parent of Boy aged 12 without a disability).

Discussion

We aimed to look at parental perspectives on disability of representative toys. We hypothesized that parents who identified their child to be disabled, and/or who had high levels of contact with disabled people would be more likely to believe their children would play with the toys than parents of non-disabled children, or with low levels of contact, which was in line with findings from Jones et al. (2020). To explore this hypothesis, we looked at each doll in turn. We found that for each of the dolls, parents of disabled children were more likely to think their child would play with them than non-disabled children. For the Barbie Fashionista using a wheelchair, and for Mia Lottie doll with a cochlear implant, this effect was moderated by contact, with parents of non-disabled children more likely to say that they would play with the doll if their child spent more time with disabled children. Interestingly, the level of contact was not a moderator for parents of disabled children. This adds weight to the literature on contact as a prejudice reduction technique (e.g., McMillan et al., 2014) among non-disabled children.

Turning to the qualitative responses, Jones et al. (2020) state that a key way to show representation of disability to children is through toys and literature. Similarly, the current study found that parents of disabled children stated their child would choose to play with the dolls because they represented a disability. Style (1996) intimates that representation is important for children with a disability to allow them to see disability represented in different areas of life, which in turn can make children with a disability feel accepted in society (Vetoniemi and Kärnä, 2021).

Age and gender were significant covariates—which qualitative results could explain. Parents of children without a disability were more likely to view that their child would not choose to play with the dolls due to their age or gender. Similarly, this adds weight to a study by Haertter (2021) which explored gender-based bias in children with and without a disability and found that children with a disability aged 3–5 years and 10–12 years showed less gender bias towards toys than children the same age without a disability.

Limitations and future directions

Turning to limitations, the sample of participants, being a convenience sample, was online, presented in English, with participants mainly in the UK. It was not ethnically diverse and most parents and carers that participated were white females. Thus, it is recommended future research considers recruiting an ethnically diverse sample of parents and children when exploring toys that represent disabilities.

Second, although parents make purchases of toys for their children, children have considerable influence over their parents’ buying decisions. Therefore, future research needs to delve into children’s reactions to these toys and consider additional factors shaping their purchase. Furthermore, while this study’s sample included parents of both disabled and non-disabled children, it focused on parental predictions regarding their children’s attitudes toward toys representing impairment rather than their actual behavior. This approach gauges their potential responses to such toys but lacks insights into any potential shifts in their real-life attitudes and interactions with disabled individuals after exposure to these toys. Subsequent research could explore this aspect by examining non-disabled children’s perceptions, as exposure to such toys and early familiarity with impairment might foster greater openness, acceptance, and understanding of disability in later life.

At a theoretical level, it is worthwhile to reconsider the limitations inherent in the concept of representation itself. This paper asserts that the lack of representation in the toy industry is the cultural barrier to inclusion, rather than the nature of any impairment. Such representation would affirm that children with impairments are not “other.” An alternative perspective, proposed by Swain and French (2000) as part of the affirmative model of disability, challenges the clarity of the category “disability,” suggesting that its content can only be understood in relation to one’s individual interpretation of “disability.” In light of this, future research should inquire about participants’ self-identification with disability rather than relying on categorization based on whether a disability was disclosed by a parent or caregiver. The views of disabled parents might also be meaningfully explored.

Conclusions

To conclude, our study sheds light on the views that parents of disabled and non-disabled children have of toys that represent disability. We showed that parents of disabled children value seeing their child’s disability represented in the toy industry. For parents of non-disabled children, we showed that our measure of the importance of disabled dolls was moderated by contact, with parents of non-disabled children more likely to say that their child would play with the doll if their child spent more time with disabled children. Future research may now turn to looking at correlations between the way that parents and the children themselves see and play with these dolls to further enhance our understanding of their place in the toybox.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sian E Jones

Note

References

Ahmed

Ananya

Mim

, et al. (2020) Barbie in a wheelchair: Mattel’s respect to customer voice wheelchair: Mattel’s respect to Customer voice. FIIB Business Review 9(3): 181–186. DOI: 10.1177/2319714520914210.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Armstrong

Morris

Abraham

, et al. (2017) Interventions utilising contact with people with disabilities to improve children’s attitudes towards disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disability and health journal 10(1): 11–22.

Birtel

Di Bernardo

Stathi

, et al. (2019) Imagining Contact Reduces Prejudice in Preschool Children. Wiley. DOI: 10.1111/sode.12374.

Braun

Clarke

(2020) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18: 328–352. DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.

Clarke

Braun

(2017) Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology 12(3): 297–298. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.

Dominelli

(2003) Web surveys—Benefits and considerations. Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, 20(4): 409–416. DOI: 10.1081/CRP-120026122.

Fahy

Delicâte

Lynch

(2021) Now, being, occupational: outdoor play and children with autism. Journal of Occupational Science 28(1): 114–132. DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2020.1816207.

Farmer

Wike

Alexander

, et al. (2015) Students with disabilities and involvement in peer victimization: theory, research, and considerations for the future. Remedial and Special Education 36: 263–274.

10.

Haertter

(2021) Children with disabilities express less concrete gender-based biases: social development of gender perceptions from preoperational to formal operational stages. Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review 1(1). DOI: 10.5195/pur.2021.16.

11.

Hayes

A.F.

(2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (Methodology in the Social Sciences). NY: The Guilford Press.

12.

Hitselberger

(2017) Finding Becky: how disability erasure in play reflects and influences reality. Review of Disability Studies: International Journal 13(3).

13.

Jones

Ali

Bhuyan

, et al. (2020) Parents’ responses to toys representing physical impairment. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 39(8): 949–966. DOI: 10.1108/EDI-08-2019-0213.

14.

Jones

Uytman

Ali

, et al. (2022) Children with physical or intellectual impairments and mental wellbeing. In: Mahmud

Satchell

(eds) Mental Wellbeing in Schools: What Teachers Need to Know to Support Pupils from Diverse Backgrounds. Abingdon: Routledge, 165–175.

15.

Kayama

Haight

(2014) Disability and stigma: how Japanese educators help parents accept their children’s differences. Social work 59(1): 24–33. DOI: 10.1093/sw/swt027.

16.

Koller

Pouesard

Rummens

(2018) Defining social inclusion for children with disabilities: a critical literature review. Children & Society 32(1): 1–13. DOI: 10.1111/chso.12223.

17.

Lindsay

Edwards

(2013) A systematic review of disability awareness interventions for children and youth. Disability & Rehabilitation 35(8): 623–646. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2012.702850.

18.

MacMillan

Tarrant

Abraham

, et al. (2014) The association between children's contact with people with disabilities and their attitudes towards disability: a systematic review. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 56(6): 529–546.

19.

Mishra

Bakry

(2021) Social identities in consumer-brand relationship: the case of the Hijab-wearing Barbie doll in the United States: ethnic identities in the multicultural marketplace. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 20(6): 1534–1546. DOI: 10.1002/cb.1965.

20.

Moore

Lynch

(2015) Accessibility and usability of playground environments for children under 12: A scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 22(5). DOI: 10.3109/11038128.2015.1049549.

21.

Mulvey

McMillian

Irvin

, et al. (2020) Youth cognition surrounding bullying of peers with disabilities: inclusion, intervention, and the role of the group. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 28(1): 17–28. DOI: 10.1177/1063426618799737.

22.

O’Neill

McDonald

Jones

(2018) Toying with inclusivity. Y. Bmj 363: k5193. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k5193.

23.

Pettigrew

T.F.

Tropp

(2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5): 751–783. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.

24.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2008) How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology 38(6): 922–934. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.504.

25.

Richards

KAR

Hemphill

(2018) A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37(2): 225–231. DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084.

26.

Richards

Melissa

Putnik

Diane

Bornstein

Marc

(2020) Toy Buying Today: Considerations, Information Seeking, and Thoughts about Manufacturer Suggested Age. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 68: 101134. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101134.

27.

Rose

Forber-Pratt

Espelage

, et al. (2013) The influence of psychosocial factors on bullying involvement of students with disabilities. Theory Into Practice 52: 272–279.

28.

Schwab

Starbuck

(2017) A Call for openness in research reporting: how to turn covert practices into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning & Education Learning and Education 16: 125–141. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2016.0039.

29.

Sinclair-Maragh

Bernard Simpson

(2021) Heritage tourism and ethnic identity: a deductive thematic analysis of Jamaican Maroons. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing (JTHSM) 7(1): 64–75. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4521331E.

30.

Stanton-Chapman

Schmidt

(2017) Caregiver perceptions of inclusive playgrounds targeting toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities: has recent international and national policy improved overall satisfaction? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 17(4): 237–246. DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12381.

31.

Style

(1996) Curriculum as window and mirror. Social Science Record 33(2): 21–28.

32.

Swain

French

(2000) Towards an affirmation model of disability. Disability & Society 15(4): 569–582. DOI: 10.1080/09687590050058189.

33.

Tekerci

Kogar

(2021) Children’s views toward their peers with disabilities during early childhood. International Journal of Progressive Education 17(5): 208–225.

34.

Vetoniemi

Kärnä

(2021) Being included–experiences of social participation of pupils with special education needs in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 25(10): 1190–1204. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1603329.

35.

Weiner

Day

Galvan

(2013) Deaf and hard of hearing students’ perspectives on bullying and school climate. American Annals of the Deaf 158: 334–343. DOI: 10.1353/aad.2013.0029.

36.

Wright

(2020) School bullying among students with intellectual disabilities: predictors, outcomes, and recommendations. In: Gopalan

(ed). Developmental Challenges and Societal Issues for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global, 40–62.

“It represents her in play” parental and child views on toys that represent disability

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Reducing prejudice and promoting inclusion

Inclusion through representation

Learning through play with dolls representing disability

When might doll play be beneficial? The role of contact

Parental views

Present study

Method

Design

Participants

Materials and procedure

Previous contact with a child who has a disability

Views on toys

Results

Mia the wildlife photographer Lottie doll (with a cochlear implant)

Barbie Fashionista # 165 (using a wheelchair)

Barbie Fashionista # 121 (with a prosthetic limb)

Hayden, the loyal companion Finn Doll (who is autistic)

Qualitative findings

Discussion

Limitations and future directions

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Note

References