Stephen Kline

Media Analysis Laboratory

Simon Fraser University

The widespread public debate concerning the role of television violence in the socialization of aggressiveness has been extended recently by the growing popularity among North American boys of TV warrior heroes like the Power Rangers. The synergy constructed between violent TV series and action toys has stimulated a public debate about the contribution of these popular ‘heroes’ to the aggressiveness of young boys play (Knight 1984). Warrior action dolls (like G.I. Joe and Ninja Turtles) have caught the public’s attention primarily because they are promoted as TV ‘heroes’ with personae scripted in their ‘back-stories’ – the implied narratives that explain the toys’ role, weapons, traits, skills and behavior -- which seem to make combat the preferred way of solving all conflicts. To the degree that young boys identify with, imitate and incorporate knowledge derived from the TV programs into their play, such programs have alarmed many parents and teachers (Carlson-Paige and Levin 1988, Smith 1994). However, given young boys general predisposition to aggressive play (Wegener-Spohring 1993, Goldstein and Jukes 1993), some authors question whether war-like "action toys" can be said to elicit or increase aggressive play narratives or anti-social attitudes in children (Sutton-Smith 1989, 1994, 1995).

Play researchers have long recognized that children identify with popular TV show characters and deploy them in their imaginary play enactment (Singer 1981, Davie et al. 1984). Limited evidence also indicates that children by the age of three recognize a link between the play and TV shows (Snow 1974 ;Argenta 1986, Bjornebekk 1992, Greenfield et. al. 1990) including some comprehension of the ‘scripting’ of the action toy’s role and moral orientation (differences between "good" and bad guys) (Kline 1993). They often make judgements about their play preferences through reference to the TV narratives (Brougere 1996, Mouritsen 1997) but clearly, more research is needed to precisely understand the communication processes which consolidate the learning of aggressive play ‘scripts’ from TV characters, roles, motives, skills and the way these scripts influence creative play enactment with action toys (Kline 1988, 1995). Although these action toy lines are increasingly popular with young boys, there is very little understanding of the complex cognitive and emotional processes by which children "read" these action toys as playthings in relation to the television narratives, or incorporate an understanding of the character’s role and personality into their play narratives and structures.

The launch of Fisher-Price ‘Rescue Heroes’ provides an excellent opportunity to explore some of these questions concerning the relationship between TV action toys and young boys enactment of aggressive scenarios in their imaginary play. The ‘Rescue Heroes’ are designed as ‘pro-social’ action toys and are accompanied by a program-length cartoon which shows the Rescue Heroes in characteristically pro-social actions. The video includes scenes of the rescue hero team engaged in a fire ‘rescue’ and ‘volcano’ rescue scenario rather than the more typical ‘combat’ scenarios associated with action figures. To the degree that young boys are interested in playing with these action toys, and internalize the pro-social scripts communicated by the video, promotional material, and parental interactions, it is expected that they should incorporate aspects of those pro-social rescue scenes in their imaginary play to the degree that the toys promote a new conception of heroism (Cohn 1996).

This pilot study of 28 Vancouver families with boys between the ages of three and six set out to assess how the Rescue Heroes’ pro-social scripting is understood by and incorporated into ‘boys play’. Mothers and sons were interviewed at the Media Analysis Laboratory at Simon Fraser University during October, November and December of 1998 and January 1999. While mothers were being interviewed about their family life and attitudes to play, observations were made of the boys engaged in free dyadic play (in a ‘play space’ providing a wide range of toys). Play sessions both before and after introduction to the Rescue Hero toys were video taped. After the play sessions, all boys were allowed to choose two Rescue Hero toys to take home and a follow-up interview of both mother and son took place after one week.

Interviews with the mothers of these young boys found them all somewhat or very concerned about the difficulties of socializing ‘non-aggressive’ male children. Most expressed enthusiasm at the prospect of a pro-social action toy line which might help them encourage pro-social creative play in their children. Many of the mothers had observed the way television programs could influence their sons behaviours in play and understood the strategy as counteracting that influence.

In most cases the mothers felt that their sons played with, and were positively influenced by the Rescue Heroes toys they were given. Many provided detailed accounts of play scenes and interactions that illustrated what their children had learned about the ‘heroic’ and pro-social back-stories associated with these toys. Several overheard situations where the boys then communicated the scripts to their siblings and peers.

The mothers were generally positive about how Rescue Hero toys changed their child’s play, and some were enthusiastic. The mothers of boys who encouraged repeated viewing of the video, or supported the learning about rescues by talking about the toys or playing with the children reported the best results in promoting pro-social play scenarios in their children.

Many boys were interested in the Rescue Hero toys because they are large and colourful. It was found that during the preliminary play session, many of the boys took Rescue Heroes from the shelf and began to explore and manipulate them and their equipment. They clearly recognized these toys as ‘action’ figures, and when they occasionally created imaginary play scenarios, they deployed these figures in fighting and combat scenes similar to and often using other action toys. The axe and grappling ‘cannon’ in particular cued fighting scenes. The toy’s design on its own, does not seem sufficient to communicate the ‘rescue script’ or induce much pro-social imaginary play unless the child has a direct experience of that rescue role.

However, the simple introduction to the toys by the researcher was sufficient to interest many of the boys in what these rescue toys could do beyond fighting, even without the video. The boys seemed intrigued particularly by the rescue technology and accessories and enjoyed manipulating them. The older boys, and those who watched the Rescue Heroes video did seem to more quickly learn the names of the toys, their moral orientation, and their rescue roles. A number of the older boys also understood the way the toys equipment could be used in a rescue in real life because of their greater knowledge of these occupations or ‘search and rescue’.

Children’s play styles and preferences vary greatly. A few of the boys were not really interested in toy play, while others had strong preferences for super-hero toys. Many boys, it seems even by age three have established a ‘preferred’ play style and reveal it in a well-developed fascination with action heroes – and with using them in staging violent conflicts or confrontations (Goldstein and Jukes 1993, Goldstein 1994). These boys immediately assimilated the Rescue Heroes into their imaginary combats despite their design and depiction in rescue actions. Rescue scenes are possible however within this framework of action toy play when the play takes on an imaginative rather than a ritualized dimension. Although there seem to be many factors involved in encouraging and including pro-social play, the boys who watched the Rescue Heroes video showed signs of understanding the rescue theme better and also more predisposed to include rescue scenes in their imaginative play than the controls who had the toys introduced in person only. A few boys were converted from action play to rescue play by the video.

Although most of the boys clearly learned something about the rescue roles and moral orientation of rescue workers, it is clear that they do not feel constrained to use the ‘pro-social’ toys only in helping situations or as "good guys". We noticed that a number of the boys seemed to have difficulty in thinking up imaginary situations beyond those shown in the video, in which rescues could be enacted. A few very imaginative children illustrated complex and creative use of the rescue idea in their play and two boys revealed thematic generalization of the pro-social themes to their conversations, or their play interactions with other toys or friends. The challenge of promoting pro-social play lies both in knowing how to break the hold of ‘ritualized conflict’ and in using TV narratives to encourage more imaginative and realistic play with Rescue Heroes.

The Duke of Wellington may seem an unlikely theorist of learning, but his statement that the "battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton" stands as a powerful thesis concerning the socialization of aggression through play. Wellington was referring, if slightly romantically, to the British aristocracy’s view of the contribution of vigorous physical contests and field sports to the preparation of young officers to the rigors of war. Sports and games the Duke implied, not only kept boys fit and released excessive energy (that might otherwise express itself as mischief), but by engaging lads collectively in strategic endeavour and submitting their behaviour to well defined rules, games helped induce the attitudes of loyalty and team play, of self disciplined leadership while under duress, even as it encouraged the rehearsal of important physical skills and simulated maneuvers. In short, aggressive game play was a perfect instrument of socialization of those particular attitudes and skills necessary for the development of manly adventurousness and risk taking that he then marshaled victoriously at the battle of Waterloo. His claim has echoed down through two centuries as both an arrogant British swagger and a disturbing warning about the complex relationship between aggressive play forms and cultural values.

The question of play and socialization of aggression has been revisited recently as the action hero toy genre, first popularized by GI. Joe ‘soldier action dolls’, began to play a growing role in the contemporary play culture of North American boys. The enormous global sales of Star Wars figures in 1977 proved how interested young boys were in futuristic warrior figures -- especially when they were marketed with an epic film backstory which identified them as mythic heroes and brought their exploits to the screen. The long standing debate about TV’s emphasis on gratuitous and unrealistic violence in children’ s fictional programming (Joesephson 1995, Hamilton 1998) brought to this debate a concern about whether these action adventure programs contributed to rougher play, bullying and increasing aggressiveness in children’s school and playground behaviour. ( Snow 1974;Pellegrini 1997; Humphreys and Smith 1987, Smith 1995). The growing concern about a culture of violence helped launch the contemporary debates about postmodern children’s media and the cynicism that pervades children’s cultural industries (Kincheloe and Steinberg 1997 ).

Indeed, in a post-Vietnam era, the traditional toy soldier’s embodiment of noble traits of male bravery, heroism, and aggressiveness has been called into question by cultural critics: parents raising boys in particular remain sensitive to the aggressive attitudes and ruthless feelings that this form of play seems to embed in "boy culture" (Kline 1993). Because action figures are associated with weapons and can move, the child plays with them differently than traditional toy soldiers – constructing, enacting and narrating rather dynamic war play scenarios which emphasize the potency of these weapons through killing, torture, brutality, and revenge (Woodman 1991). This is because when playing with their action figures players become identified with the warrior personae and express these subjective states and motivations through aggressive play narratives or 'scripts' learned from TV. Superhero play is thus more complexly aggressive than the traditional strategic manipulation and battle arrays of toy soldiers. It is with respect to their ‘content’ as play media -- that is, the implicit values and experiences encoded into the toy and TV programmes, that action figures continue to be of great concern to many Canadian parents.

As sales of action toys climbed and as TV advertising and programming were devised to promote them, the public increasingly wondered whether action heros were totally without consequence for their children. These action figures, the critics pointed out are not like those traditional ‘toy soldiers’ so innocently celebrated in the Nutcracker at Christmas. Those generic figurines were harmlessly marshaled and maneuvered in a manner like chess pieces in a battle array. But such toys must be distinguished from the hyper-commercialized "Small Soldiers" of our own time which communicate a jingoistic militarism of wanton and unremitting destruction. It is the values programmed into action toys, and their infiltration of play rituals that sparked the disruption of the kinder-garden that worried the teachers and parents.

The academic debates about children’s war-like games and aggressive play was brought into focus during the 1980’s, when the deregulation of US television allowed marketers to use ‘tie-ins’ between action toys and television series to consolidate the growing popularity of these heroic warrior toys among young boys (GI Joe, Transformers, Gobots, Thundercats, Ninja Turtles). Although not all ‘character’ toys are action figures, it was the growing prominence of warrior hero persona, and the implicit violent actions and militaristic attitudes in the promotional programming, and the intensified aggressiveness these characters seem to bring to children’s imaginative play routines that have maintained this controversy. Several sensational news stories of young children inspired by, or imitative of the violence associated with their favorite action heroes being hurt while pretend "fighting" in the play ground, lead to bans of weapons and violent toys in some pre-schools, and to protests against the 30 minute toy commercials that promoted them.

It is with the growing popularity of warrior action figures promoted by TV in mind, that Carlson-Paige and Levine wrote The War Play Dilemma (1987) in which they summarized the dismay felt by many parents and teachers who were watching the ritualized, repetitive and often media inspired play activities that young boys engaged in play rooms and pre-schools. These critics argued that such toys promoted imitative fighting and highly ritualistic war play scenarios in US pre-school age children. This book, called for more research on the much debated relationship between TV violence and aggression on the playground. Since this time, many schools have banished super-hero toys from the playroom, and recent outbreaks of playground conflicts stimulated by Power Rangers have lead to the growing parental concern in the England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and Canada about the way character toys seem to promote violence and aggressiveness in children’s play culture.

For some commentators the popularity of the ‘war play’ is not that surprising. Noting that ritualized aggression is the root of many of our most popular cultural practices Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan observes how two New Guinea tribes Willigiman-Wallalua and the Wittaia have transformed centuries of confrontation into a surprisingly bloodless ritual that looks like a dangerous field sport. "These people in short detect in these games a kind of model of their universe, in whose deadly gavotte they participate through the ritual of war games". Reflecting on the popularity of aggressive sports and games in our own times, he goes on to note: "The wide appeal of the games of recent times, seen as outer models of inner psychological life, become understandable. As models they are collective rather than private dramatizations of inner life. Like our vernacular tongues, all games are media of interpersonal communication and they could have neither existence nor meaning except as extensions of our immediate inner lives." (pg. 210.)

Although toys are clearly an important children’s medium for communicating about aggression, we know very little about this medium, or how toys communicate their "potential for aggressive play" to children. We do know that the formation of a child’s play preferences and the stability of their play styles is largely established within the first year (Furby and Wilke 1982). These preferences and play styles are highly gendered both in terms of the types of toys children use, and the way that they play with them (Liss 1983, Karpoe and Olney 1983). The formation of these stable play styles and cognitive activity that consolidates them is complex (Copple et al. 1983) taking place within the varied peer and familial contexts (Eisenberg et al 1985) but also related to the child’s use of media including advertisements about toys (Wolf 1975). Wilson and Weiss (1992) found that girls 4-6 were perceptually oriented to the visual cues of ads and especially confused about the differences between a toy related commercial and a programme.

But the development of aggressive play styles is not entirely dependent on media. Many play researchers agree that aggressive play rituals using toy soldiers remain a long standing and continuing ‘play form’ among young boys. As updated versions of the traditional toy soldier, action toys seem to continue the energetic and competitive playfulness of ‘conflict rituals’ which are part of male play culture including football, capture the flag, tag, hide and seek argues Brian Sutton-Smith (1988). In many cases neutral play objects too, like boxes or Lego, can become weapons of war to an 4 year old boy who is steeped in a ‘culture of violence’ ( Blurton Jones,1984). Wegener- Spohring (1994) has likewise observed many elements of mock aggression and intensely conflict-laden dramaturgy in young children’s spontaneous play – even with non military toys in a kindergarden. She wonders if such aggressive thoughts are not important for children’s maturation and resolution of internal conflicts. Goldstein and Jukes (1993) have also noted that not all children acquire these preferences for aggressive toys, and that it is young boys who mostly maintain an exclusive interest in war-like play with warrior toys.

The war-play dilemma arises because as paradoxical communication, toys as media refer simultaneously to the ‘known and given’ social world in which soldiers are associated with violence and killing and to the imaginary ‘as if’ world of possibility that can be created by the player engaging in make-believe. The soldier therefore is not only a warrior, but also a ‘concrete symbol’ of the player’s ability to express their inner needs, conflicts and ideas through playful expressiveness. This is why Sutton Smith argues the repeated scenes of mock aggression and high spirits are really signs of play’s psychological engagement and developmental importance, and not of the acquisition of aggressiveness. Therefore to condemn action dolls as violent is to fail to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the why and how of children's play.

In his refutation of the War-Play Dilemma, Brian Sutton Smith (1988, 1997) maintains that we should not worry about a young boy’s enthusiasm for playing with toy soldiers, or toys which incorporate violent themes and aggressive fantasies into their play because toys which inspire intense and active involvement help create the deep play children need to grow, learn, and socialize. Sutton-Smith believes that the pleasure derived in action figure play indicates that the child remains the agent and the beneficiary of their own play. He has stronger reservations about the ‘over-control’ of play by parents and teachers because the much worse option is to reduce the enthusiasm of play itself by constraining, controlling and sanitizing their games of themes that are the source of such engagement. Parents should be cautious in over-controlling the natural energy that makes play so important to young boys maturation he warns.

The debate about children’s action toys therefore reveals the extent to which the contemporary toy market has been influenced by the changing cultural attitudes towards toys, play and children in this century. The ‘antiwar’ sentiments that grew up around the cold war (which were crystallized by the American involvement in the Viet Nam conflict) made war play a less attractive activity for children in many parents view. Indeed, the growing concern about the scripting of high-tech war toys was satirized in the recent Dreamworks film Small Soldiers in which the military-industrial complex turns its attention to consumer products like toys. Taking over a toy company that produces action dolls, Globotech industries markets an advanced line of mechanized warrior toys that are not just scripted but programmed to annihilate the lost Gorgon aliens. When one of the geeky toy designers protests that the proposed new hi-tech military doll lines which can talk and learn are "too violent", the head of Globotech industries Mr. Mars replies sardonically: "don’t call it violence, call it action. Kids love action. It sells. Besides which they are only toys. What are you worried about? ". Yet the 1990's have seen a growing concern about childhood aggression and a lively debate about family values.

Critics too, have noticed that new production technologies have enabled toy companies to design more realistic toy figures and weapons, which when promoted as ‘hi-tech warrior heroes’ inspire intense identification among young boys precisely as parents began to value pro-social and cooperative play activities which consolidated creativity and social skills (Cohn 1996). Mothers in particular, especially those raising male children in a ‘post-feminist’ era, wondered if the implicit aggressive traditions of male socialization weren’t in fact part of a problem perpetuating greater inequality between the sexes (Media Watch 1995). Feminist debates have influenced many mothers, leading to a revaluation of the ‘play ethos’ and growing concerns about boy ‘play’ culture and the socialization of social skills, roles and attitudes in males. Ironically, although boys were playing with dolls as opposed to machines, there were clearly profound differences between how young males and females used dolls in their social play (Liss 1981, Karpoe 1985). Action toy play which includes aggressive and martial content has become an engaging and enjoyable activity for many young boys particularly between the ages of 3 and 7 because it opens the imaginary door to the realms of power.

In the case of boys play with character toys, the influence of television programmes which provide the context of aggression is particularly notable. Bandura’s (1977) studies of observational modelling have long been the basis of arguments about the cognitive social learning processes by which children acquire more aggressive play behaviours. Observational modelling assumes that to the degree that children attend to an aggressive model’s behaviour, symbolically internalize that behaviour, enact that behaviour, and receive some reward for the consequences, the behaviour will be predisposed. Singer (1981) found that television contents influenced play in terms of young boys pretending to be super-hero’s and becoming more animated and energetic in their pretend play when they became super hero characters that they saw on TV. The boys not only imitate but identify more deeply with the TV hero because deeds, and not role define the character. In this sense, what the player learns and internalizes from TV is character complexes -- voices, patterns of speech, appropriate weapons, skills, strengths and weaknesses, etc. that make that model attractive (Reeves and Miller 1978).

Huesmann’s (1988) script theory proposed that children utilize such complex observations of behaviour from TV and peer models to encode or represent situation based concepts of sequences of behaviour enactments. The scripts are higher order cognitive expectations about the sequence of events that result in human interactions of various types and can include motivations, experiences, social roles, props, rules, feelings, statements etc. Scripts are both essential for assimilating, interpreting and judging a model or peers enactments (on TV programmes or real life) as well as the intervening cognitive process that predisposes particular expressive enactments and responses in particular situations. It is through observing the way kids played aggressively with action figures enacting ritualistically the combat scripts that led critics to ask whether these super-hero toys were instilling militaristic values and aggressive attitudes in young boys (Carlson-Paige and Levin 1987).

The action hero is designed as a character toy whose TV personality, motivation, weapons and strengths are well known by the child who plays with them. In many cases children skillfully use their knowledge of the toys’ backstories in their construction of the play scenarios and narratives (Mouritsen 1996). Action toy play depends on the child’s ‘reading’ of the specific toy’s narrative universe (not generic knowledge of war play) action figure play become an imitative enactment of television programmes. Eaton and Dominick (1991) point out that action toys are in this sense doubly ‘scripted’ with aggressive values – they are both designed as muscle bound hi-tech ‘toy soldiers’ and as "TV heroes" whose personalities, motivations, weaponry, and moral positions are communicated through their television series which ‘saturate’ these programmes with the use of force (rather than negotiation or cooperation) to solve problems. The linking of toys play potential with the animated television series therefore threatens to make play more aggressive and more ritualistic as the boys assimilate these aggressive themes and ideas imitatively to script their own action play scenarios.

Although there are many anecdotal cases of young boys emulating their action hero’s, particularly in playful kicking and hitting in the playground, the implications of the double scripting of action toys is not well understood. Singer (1981) had claimed that more imaginative children were less aggressive in their play enactments because they were more capable of accomodating the TV characterizations in their play. Mary Polaski (1974) similarly stated in an early study of media based dolls: "The result revealed that Barbie (media-based toy) promotes less creativity than neutral toys such as rag dolls. From these results, it can be inferred that media-based toys inhibit a child’s creativity in play." In the case of Barbie although she could "do or be anything", it appears that "children engage primarily in fashion play dressing and undressing her because television portrays her with multiple roles and children can choose which of those roles to assign to the doll. Yet, children do not know what else to do with her." Greenfield et. al. (1990) also argued that TV based products limit creativity and stimulate more imitative behaviour. So too, Varney (forthcoming) has claimed that television toys are used less creatively by kids who interprete them as characters who are pre-programmed to fight. Citing educational researcher Lynne Bartholomew who found that creative play around flexible props "encouraged children to negotiate the play script with each other, so that each child felt a sense of belonging and ownership in the play" she claims "there is a sense of participation which ran deeper and was more meaningful than the rather more superficial involvement encouraged by overdetermined (TV) toys. This means that overstructured toys involved the risk of using less ingenuity and resourcefulness, both of which are useful in co-operation and participatory play."

In a test of this hypothesis Greenfield et. al. (1990) compared the imaginative stories of children who are shown an episode of a product-based (Smurf) cartoon and then given Smurfs with those of children who are shown the cartoon and then given neutral (Troll) toys. The results of the experiment revealed that product-based television viewing i.e. Smurf cartoon followed by storytelling of that product (Smurf toy) stimulated imitative stories and inhibited creative stories. Conversely, a neutral activity (connect the dots) followed by story-telling of a product-based toy (Smurf) stimulated more creative responses than a product based cartoon (Smurf Cartoon) followed by a product-based toy (Smurf). The researchers suggest that "children learn the story-line as they watch the program or film and imitate it because they believe there is only one "right way" to play with the program/film based toy-the way the program or film presents it".

Researchers have also noticed that structuring of play around good guys and bad guys can sometimes become a barrier to creative social play. Brougere (1996) observes that some boys are unable to engage in social play with Power Rangers because few are willing to play the "bad guy" and inevitably get beaten. The television programmes seem to instill demand characteristics into play, and children’s prescriptions of what you can do with ‘scripted’ toys can be narrowly explained by reference to the movie or TV programme. In her study kids playing in a day care with TV toys, Zara Tedja (1995) reports: "In addition, children would not co-mingle the characters from Teenage Mutant Turtles television with The Little Mermaid character. All three groups of children appeared to obey the rules that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cannot "talk" to Belle, for instance, because they are from two different movies and they would be "breaking the law", as one student put it". The scripted universe of TV toys seems to truncate the possibilities read into character toys leaving children reluctant to combine in their imaginary enactment, toys from different play universes (Barbie and Transformers), or to have their favorite hero’s behave in ways are not shown on the TV program (Kline 1997).

In recognizing the paradoxical communication of toys, we might ask whether the dynamism and energy which Sutton-Smith values in action toy play might be harnessed to the task of encouraging empathy and supporting more pro-social experiences in young boys. Pursuing this idea of a pro-social action toy, Fisher-Price have launched a new line of rescue figures which are marketed in conjunction with a video which depicts these Rescue Heroes in acts of helping and aiding people in trouble rather than in conflict with enemies or military situations. The figures are designed around roles in the rescue profession (fire fighter, mountain rescue, scuba diver) that have lots of scope for both action and heroic adventures. The rescue roles are further expressed by their equipment and accessories which are typically used in all kinds of rescue, problem solving and helping situations -- rather than for combat, intimidation or fighting with. The development of character back stories (on cards), advertisements showing the characters in rescue scenes, promotional events concerning local children who are Rescue Heroes, and an accompanying video are all intended to support the development of these more pro-social ways of playing with action toys.

Clearly the success of Rescue Heroes in encouraging alternatives to the conflict oriented patterns of action hero play depends on the processes of communication with children about the pro-social traits and personalities associated with the toys, and the cooperative play possibilities afforded by rescue and helping themes. Essentially for the strategy to have significant impact on the way boys between the ages of 3 and 6 play, a number of conditions supporting the communication of non-violent and pro-social play scripts are requisite. The action figures must maintain the excitement and engagement of action toy play while supporting a more pro-social play form which includes helping scenarios and more collaborative play activities.

The limited research available suggests that there is a need to study in detail the communications processes that underwrite pro-social action hero play, including the influence that the toys design, supportive material and TV, peers and parents have in communicating toy knowledge and appropriate play scripts which support the preferences and imaginative use of character toys by young players. The following report discusses the result of a small study which we conducted to assess the merits of this strategy based on a communication perspective on play. In analyzing the toy as media we sought to understand to what degree the promotion of rescue action play scenarios are assimilated into the play activities of young boys. is contingent on how well the toys scripting is understood by young players and whether the boys are willing to watch, play with and use the pro-social scripting of these toys in their imaginative narration of their play.

The report provides evidence gathered from our work interviewing and observing 27 mothers and 30 boys between the ages of 3-6.

• How concerned are parents of young boys about the socialization of aggressiveness. Do they see the need to counteract the aggressiveness implicit in most action toy play. What are their values and priorities in making judgements about what is good play and what kinds of toys, play or other media do the restrict and control? Do they value and support the inclusion of pro-social action toys into the child’s play repertoires and become involved in the play activities of their children?
• How do the patterns of family life and the circumstances of the child influence their patterns of play and their preferences for toys and their use of aggressive themes and actions in their play. How interested in pro-social toys are young boys between the ages of 3-6 (relative to other action toys, to toys generally, and to other leisure activities). Are their combative preferences and habits of aggressive action toy play open to the inclusion of more rescue themes, or its it focused on ritualized construction of conflict scenarios alone?
• To what extent does the pro-social scripting and cueing of the Rescue Heroes toys get effectively communicated to the child, (e.g. do they understand the personalities, motives and attitudes, characteristic actions, skills, use of equipment by these role models. Do they find these roles as interesting and engaging as other action figure roles? What are the most effective ways of communicating these roles and traits to the child (TV, cards, toy and accessory design, peer and parental involvement)? To what extent do the boys incorporate this knowledge into their play on a long term basis and do the pro-social play scripts generalize to play with other toys, other kids, and other play situations?

The following report discusses one attempt to explore the social communication processes underlying the Fisher Price Strategy for encouraging pro-social play among boys (3-6) with Rescue Hero Action Toys. As a pilot study, our approach was qualitative and open ended. We gathered our convenience sample of thirty males by posting an invitation notice in pre-school day-cares and after school childcare programmes throughout Burnaby and Vancouver. Although we were successful in balancing the ages of the sample with 15 in the 3-4 range and 15 in the 5-6 range, and drew interest from families with diverse social and economic backgrounds, we did not have high participation rates from the Chinese immigrant community which represents about 20% of the Vancouver population (this was in spite of going on Chinese Language radio).

We arranged for the mothers to bring their sons to the Media Analysis Laboratory at Simon Fraser University to participate in an interview about children’s media and play. The families participated in pairs so that while the mother was being interviewed about their family background, the boys played in dyads for approximately 10 minutes in a waiting area set up with a wide range of toys. While they played a day care worker asked them casually about their leisure interest, their TV viewing and toy preferences.

After the family background interviews were completed, the mothers returned to the lab area where the families were introduced to the Rescue Heroes toys by the researcher. The introduction took place around a table and each toy was identified by name and had their rescue role, their equipment, and a typical rescue scene described. The two families then watched a twenty minute video presentation. This part of the induction procedure varied slightly depending on which of three treatments the children are assigned to: Group 1 (Medium) (10 families) watched the Rescue Heroes video and Ad. Group 2 (High) watched the Rescue Heroes video and ad and the mom’s later received additional coaching to use the cards and video to remind children of the hero roles at least three times). Group 3 (Control) watched a neutral cartoon and received no cards or coaching.

After the video, the mothers were interviewed while the boys returned to the waiting area and were again allowed to play for another 10-12 minutes. Before leaving the boys were allowed to chose two Rescue Hero toys to take home. One week later the team interviewed both mother and child in the home concerning their weeks play experiences and use of rescue hero toys. The boys were asked to make an ad explaining the Rescue Heroes toys which they presented to the video camera as a way of eliciting their understanding of the rescue hero roles and scripts. All interviews were transcribed and both play sessions which had been video taped were coded for various behaviours noted in Appendix # 1.

Whether recruitment was a matter of self selection by those families most interested in children’s play, or simply a reflection of the long standing Canadian concern about their children’s excessive and gratuitous exposure to violence in contemporary media culture (cf. CRTC report on V-chip), the mothers in our sample unanimously articulated generalized concerns about the problem of aggressiveness in boy culture. A mother said forcefully: "TV for kids should be censored... I don't think violent images are good for the spirit and I think the way that media has become so global and it has really contributed to the level of fear that society has now, for instance the crime rate is dropping but the perception of crime is still huge and I think that is because of global media". She went on to say: "the stupidity and the mindlessness of the cartoons and the TV in general really concerns me". Another declared passionately: "I think that what makes us adults today, everything is instilled in us as young kids and if they see so much violence that they think it is an everyday thing then there is a good chance that they may act that out. I don't want my kids to think that that is ok".

One commonly reported effect of watching violent TV is that it influences play. Many felt that their children imitated what they saw on TV. "For every child to some degree what they see whether its on TV or at home they mimic and they learn and they become until it becomes part of their typical self." Another said simply "he would act it out-monkey see, monkey do". One said her son "had an incredible memory" and "he could do the last half an hour of cartoons he had just seen he use to mimic the beast wars." In the same way, one mom reported her son "gets his bad guys and good guys' from TV and computer games" he'll make sound effects or battle sounds, nothing much more however". Others report stronger effects "The more he watches of the rough stuff its going to effect him and I would be concerned if all he wanted to watch was violence, I would probably have to take the TV away from him because he does get rough if he watches certain shows" .

We noticed that in defining their concerns about boys play, many of their statements were related to violent cartoons on TV and video games, but their concerns spills over into aggressive play in general. One mother stated thoughtfully that "I really believe it starts from the beginning, how the parents will direct the boys. Like I said with these mixed messages we are getting—boys are tougher, they fight—I don’t think there is much wrong with wrestling they have to get rid of their energy, that’s a normal need. But when they get the message don’t be a baby, don’t cry like a girl then they automatically get the message that they have to toughen up, so fighting is OK -- and it is OK but depending on how they do it. If everywhere they see on TV or other kids that are hitting each other or they are fighting with each other they will think that is totally normal and I think it is the parent’s work to guide them and say there is nothing wrong with you having the energy and you wanting to get rid of it or wrestle with each other but until the point that someone gets hurt, then it is NOT OK."

As the moms described, their sons are rather interested in toys and ready to play at a moments notice. Even in a strange and new play area, the boys mostly ‘went to town’ immediately taking toys off the shelves and getting stuck into their play activities. Some boys examined and manipulated all the toys available to them, while others spent a great deal of time with only a couple. Most of the boys played with between five and 13 toys during the 10 minute first play session. A very large green Inhumanoids doll and a toy truck were very attractive, as were the familiar action figures (Batman, Spiderman) and other boys toys (Lego, FP Giant, Tonka truck). Typically the younger boys took a toy off the shelf, examined it carefully and then manipulated it without saying much for a while. Sometimes the play was accompanied by noises and built gradually into a more active motion or structured play activity. Some of the boys were very rough and aggressive, others shy and silent in their play. Some knew each other and several brothers were included in the sample. Others tended to play alone or with the play worker. The data is presented more fully in the and captured on video tapes ( see Appendix 1)

Their bright colour and size, and their accessory packs clearly made Rescue Hero toys attractive to the boys in their own right even without prior exposure to the rescue back-story or ads. The boys would systematically explore what could be manipulated on or with the toy, and took great pleasure in finding out how the equipment worked by pressing, winding or detaching the moveable parts. When asked what they liked about them, the boys indicated that that were ‘bigger than usual’ they were ‘new’ and different looking, and that they had interesting equipment to play with (i.e. Billy Blazes axe and Rocky Canyon’s sky hook were particularly of interest).

Getting to know a toy is clearly a first step toward imaginative play. Toys communicate through their design (colour, faces, costumes etc). Much of the cognitive activity of this primary relationship with toys seems to be about figuring out what the toy is – what manner of toy, what it represents and how it groups with other toys. Exploring and arraying the toys seems to be related to the structured interpretations these players are making. It takes a bit of time touching and manipulating a toy before the boys feel they have assessed it. Most of the ‘play’ that we observed during the first session therefore was ‘parallel play’ involving inspection, manipulation and array of these toys rather than more complex dyadic social interaction or fantasy narratives-- and although it varied with age of the child, less than one fifth of the time was taken up with constructing complex play scenes or multi-toy scenarios.

It is clear enough from their behaviour, that all the boys were well indoctrinated with the basic action toy play scripts and assimilated most toys including Rescue Heroes to a fairly repetitive set of toy based actions. When they take an action figure like Batman or Tendril the world is divided into good and evil and confrontations are inevitable. After a brief moment of examining and manipulating an action toy, most boys then find something or some one to attack. The attacks happen with various degrees of intensity and may or may not include actual contact. Sometimes the toys are just smashed together; sometimes they are knocked over or thrown; voices and noises often accompany the conflicts.

In this sense we were not surprised that Rescue Hero toys are quickly assimilated into the basic action toy play universe (Brougere 1998). The similarity of their equipment to weapons (axe, hammer, hook etc.) ensured that Rescue Hero figures were identified as ‘action figures’-- a fact that was confirmed by repeated deployment of the Rescue Heroes in typical battle and fighting confrontation scenarios. As noted previously, before engaging in aggressive play subjects would separate the action toys into groups or teams of good or bad characters. Different criteria were used to determine the characters demeanor and position in the conflict. Whether it be colour, "all the bad guys have red" or their physical appearances "his face looks mean" or "his face looks good", the boys always had a reason for distinguishing good from bad, even if they were unable to articulate it well.

Rocky’s grappling hook allowed the boys to explore and develop interesting play scenarios that other toy’s equipment would not allow. Many of the boys were excited to explore the many places they could hang Rocky including shelves, ceilings, lights , chairs and articles of clothing. Not only were they intrigued by Rocky’s ability to hang, but they were extremely interested in their ability to "shoot" his "cannon". This ability provided the most appeal and entertainment during fighting scenes. His cannon was also often utilized to tie up, drag, strangle, capture or torture the bad guy, usually Tendril because of his size and his ability to stand or be dragged around. When asked if Rescue Hero could ever fight one boy said: "Yah…they do fight and have a job. See if he wasn’t a super hero (Rocky) he wouldn’t have this , this shoots and this grabs and this slices things" . The rescue equipment that makes them attractive, also seems to cue their use in fighting – the axe for example meant that Billy Blazes was frequently used to chop an enemy. One subject referred to Billy the "axer guy" in the lab and another boy called him "Axeman" during his home interview even though they knew he was a fireman. Jack’s pneumatic drill was an excellent device for hitting another toy while it was down

Interviewer-"Have you seen him before"?

Subject -"Yah, at my friend’s"

Interviewer-"What do they do"?

Subject-"he’s a super hero"

Interviewer-"what would he use his axe for"?

Subject -"To beat up bad guys" (he chops the giant in the back with Billy’s ax).

This notion of grouping and developing teams (universally called "good guys" and "bad guys") played an important role in the child’s discussions of the toys, and the narratives and imaginary scenes that they could produce with action toys. The groupings indicate that once the boys recognized that Rescue Heroes were ‘action figures’, and locate their roles from their design and equipment, they then had to generate a conceptual framework for how to play with them. Having identified the moral divisions of the toys, the next problem for the player seems to be "what can I do with these teams". The act of grouping indicates how important this oppositional attribution is, making conflict the narrative basis of play. Without a sense of what made a character good or bad it was highly unlikely the boys would be as likely to develop a narrative for their arrangements of toys.

To some boys, the roles (fire fighter, construction worker) were of greater salience, based on personal experience. One set of play partners played with Billy a lot because he was a fireman and they had visited a fire station at school and had met firemen. Another set of brothers were keen on playing with Jack as a construction worker, revealing in their actions a prior knowledge of construction work. It is apparent that a child’s life experiences effects the style of play they choose and exposure to the real thing seems to support "in role" play. But it is also clear that playing with role defined toys does not constrain play scenes to match real life.

After the first free play session the boys were gathered with their mothers around a table to be introduced to the Rescue Hero line and to watch a video. The introduction was carefully prepared to provide the basic information about the scripting of the toy including the characters name, rescue role, equipment and what it can do, and a typical rescue scene involving that toy would be described and demonstrated. The control group then watched a Bugs Bunny cartoon, while the other two groups watched the ad and video for Rescue Heroes. Most of the boys watched the ad and video with interest. The boys seemed excited and interested to hear about the Rescue Hero toys they had just played with. Occasionally they played with the Rescue Heroes sitting on the table while watching TV. A few of the younger ones seemed to lose the story line however, and two got up from the table and wanted to go back to the play area; one fidgeted restlessly until he climbed across the table to take the demonstration Rescue Hero figures to hold, and then continued to watch.

One boy, who had both the video and two Rescue Heroes at home, told his play partner to manipulate his Rescue Heroes when he saw them on the TV screen. It was sort of a game that connected the toy with the show. He was also able to recite the narrative of the video because of repeated viewing at home, therefore allowing his attention to be diverted towards his manipulation of the toys. But many of the boys took some pleasure in seeing the Rescue Heroes in the commercial and video, while they had them in hand or in front of them; perhaps it was so they could compare theirs with the real thing on TV. Many boys pointed out the toys on the table when the characters are introduced by name. Some boys continuously held the Rescue Heroes and they seemed to be playing with them subconsciously while simultaneously watching the video.

The video seems fairly effective in conveying the basic constellation of names, traits, equipment use, rescue role that defines the Rescue Hero Universe. We observed that knowledge of rescue roles and helping orientation of these characters was more evident after the video, and especially after one week. The more frequently the children watched the more they could remember the toys names, what the equipment was for and their typical rescue roles. Watching TV helped the boys establish both an interest in their toys, and a depth of knowledge about these characters. We were surprised to find however, that a simple demonstration of the toy could also be effective in conveying the toys roles and actions to the children. Even in the control group, some boys were able to identify the names of the Rescue Hero toys, and their roles as firefighter or scuba diver. A few also incorporated this knowledge into their play based on some of their defined features, their equipment, or their moral alignment as rescuing heroes.

Given the differences in play style and family orientation it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about how the video effects the boys free play. Yet we saw repeated examples of how easy it is for the boys to assimilate the rescue thematic into their usual action toy play. Two subjects of 5 who seemed to understand the roles of the Rescue Hero’s decided to play with consciously them not according to the programme: one boy explained that the Rescue Hero’s could fight but they could only "fight bad guys" maintaining their moral orientation but misreading their role. Before watching the video he used two of the Rescue Hero’s to control the Big green monster Tendril "so he can’t get anybody". He also made Gil fight the Batman character because Gil did "not like what the Batman guy was doing". Another boy who understood the roles of the Rescue Hero’s and understood and enjoyed the video still preferred to play fight, and develop teams including Rescue Heroes to fight the other boys teams.

A typical action figure aficionado was a 5 year old who before the video set up the Rescue Hero’s and other toys for a battle but did not physically hit or fight with any of the toys. After the video he did incorporate some rescues into his narratives, but they usually resulted in a fight between the bad guys and the Rescue Hero’s. The interviewer asked "Do the Rescue Hero’s fight"? to which he answered "Yah". But when asked "Can they fight each other"? He explained "No cause they are on the same team…they fight the bad guys". After the video his aggression level increased dramatically as his narratives complexified. He made the Rescue Hero’s fight and save people but also he used other action figures such as Spiderman to do the same. His imaginative playing seemed stimulated by the video.

Other subjects decided on aggressive narratives which included the Rescue Hero:

S "Yah, jack hammer, (in a singing voice) Lets kill the Rescue Heroes. (He says this as he uses Billy’s axe to chop the Batman character). (He then puts Jack Hammer in the water

S He’s going to go in the water, he’s going to go in the water and this can make him swim really fast. ( use Billy to save Jack. He said that Billy’s axe would help him swim really fast) No more Rescue Heroes for you… (He says this while holding the Batman character). Their going to fight. (He has the Batman character and Billy)

Subject -Cause this guy put this guy in the water. (The Batman character put Jack in the water).This is how he’s going to kill him. (he takes Billy in one hand and the Batman character in the other and uses Billy’s ax to chop the Batman character in the face).

Although such ambiguous readings were common, we also witnessed two very positive impacts of viewing the video on their play: Firstly, on children who were initially dis-interested in action toys who then incorporated rescue hero themes imitating the movie with the Rescue Hero toys. And secondly, those boys who initially preferred playing combat action play but who began to integrate Rescue Hero characters, abilities and traits into their action play scripts.

Two 4 years old were an excellent example of the influence of the video in changing their play habits. The video demonstrably affected the way the two boys played. Neither boy used the Rescue Heroes to rescue anyone before the video but after they developed elaborate rescue scenes for the majority of the second half of the play session.

Subject -"How about that guy he needs to get rescued (Gil), but I rescued him"

Subject -"(Holding onto Gil on the chair) Help I need rescuing. Shoot up here and I’ll grab that (Rocky’s hook)"

Subject -"anyway it got caught and I pulled it back (Hook)"

Subject -"just pull it"

Subject -"No don’t"

Subject -"Why?"

Subject -"Cause I want to do this" (he wanted to wind up the rope using the winder or Rocky’s pack)

They grabbed a chair in the play room and placed different characters on top of it and took turns rescuing them. Later in the week one of these boys continued playing rescue scenes (supported by his mom) and he built a block house he used in his fireman rescue scenario repeatedly.

Another younger subject who had not used the rescue idea in the first play session, once he grasped the concept of the Rescue Hero’s and their jobs and used them often in rescuing scenarios. He even used the Rescue Hero’s to rescue both the interviewer and his playmate taking pleasure in this clever use of equipment to help people. By using Rocky’s grappling hook he would throw it out and then tell either the other boy or the interviewer to hold on to it while he wound it back in. After the play session was over he took his Rocky and Billy, to show his Dad who was waiting outside the room and asked his Dad to save him using Rocky’s grappling hook.

After one week, we interviewed the mothers at home. They generally reported that their children were interested in playing with the Rescue Hero we gave them: "Yes, they were a big hit"" Several moms reported that their children’s interest in the Rescue Heroes grew: " he wants to get all the guys . We bought "roger houston" and he said he wanted to get all of the guys." Another said: "I liked them, they are funny and clunky and they stand up". Several children asked for the other guys in the series "Y remembered their names (Billy and Rocky) when I asked him. He was very excited to tell dad all about the toys when he got home." Some of the boys developed an attachment to them: ‘they were kind of around him even when he wasn't actively playing with them. they were close by and he would hang on to them" . Many mothers reported that they were played with regularly: "He played with the toys pretty consistently throughout the whole week probably about a half an hour each night."

One mother reported that her son " loved them, that first day he was totally wired". His interest was sustained throughout the week: "He talked about them to his friends and he sings the song… Something that amazed me was that after he was done playing with them he just put them right back onto his shelf. But usually he isn’t cautious about putting things away but it seems to me that they are a treasure for him. Several mom’s said their boys took Rescue Hero to school and one reported "They were a huge success. The teacher said everyone was going crazy. Which surprised me because Fisher Price has typically been for the younger age group and his daycare are 6-12 so I was surprised that R was even interested in them let alone the older age group. So I was impressed that the older age group are interested in FP toys." Popular toys get shown around as another mother explained: "He did enjoy playing with them and showing them to his friends. He chose to take them to school for show and tell. "He said that the toys went over really well and I happened to walk by the school at lunch time and I saw him playing with the toys and there were a bunch of other kids around him and they were all playing with them." Another younger boy who took his Rescue Hero to day care was not so lucky. He had is toy taken away because the day care supervisor thought they were violent toys because of the shooting and the axe, but this three year old was not able to explain sufficiently well what they did."

Other mom’s noted an initial period of excitement with a gradual declining interest in the Rescue Hero toys: With several of the mothers of younger boys the amount of time they played with Rescue Heroes gradually diminished " The time Max spent with the toy gradually wore off. "at first it was every day for the first three or four or five days after our first session, I'd say every day. They were the focus. I’d say about an hour or two a day during the beginning, but much less so the last few days". Another mom reported her son "spent quite a bit in the beginning but it has dwindled a bit lately". Still she was impressed enough to say he "would be getting the set for Christmas". Another mother of a five year old, said he was very excited about them, especially when first left the lab. "Now his interest has worn off". The only time the mom could remember her son playing with them was when she went to a bar "and the waitress told her that "he was using the toys to rescue each other."

Another mother noted that "The toys have stayed out they haven’t been put away which very often they play with something one or two days and then they don’t play with it for the rest of the week … so I would say that the play with them has been steady , I wouldn’t say they have been totally been ignored and one piece of the mask is somewhere" but she also remarked that sometimes the play was aggressive: "They were again using them to fight with one another, they were making up a bit of a story but I wasn’t totally listening to them but there was some conflict dialogue". One mother felt the equipment was cueing the wrong kind of play: "the axe thing is something I would not buy for him and the grappling hook is not something I would get for him either because he is inclined towards using it for things for which [I don’t approve]. He has got his action figures, I hate that stuff, I know he likes them but I don’t know that I would have chosen these ones (Rescue Heroes)".

Observing their children playing with them, most mom’s praised the Rescue Hero toys and they generally commented they were a "good quality" and "pro-social" toy. "they are durable and well made. they have the action, which he likes but its very positive" "I am a safety professional its the stuff we've always talked about, so its great" "Its all these different segments of society that come together to help out and I thought that was a really good aspect of it" One mom was particularly impressed that both her children played with them commenting: "for a three year old to like them and an eight year old to like them and for them to play with them together and they are not mean and ugly looking...I think they're great". Other mom’s commented the liked the size, the solidity and colours of the toys "they're solid and big but the only downfall was that his backpack doesn't clip in and it kept falling off and he had a hard time getting it back on." Another mom said "We did note that especially by the end of the week many of the Rescue Hero had been separated from their detachable equipment, and that two of the Rocky’s had their sky hooks broken. But he wants the rest of the Rescue Hero team."

One mother noted a negative consequence to liking of the Rescue Hero he was given: "M loved the toy, but as he does he hoarded it and put it away and I haven’t seen it since". She went on to explain that having had to share it with his brother he develops a very possessive attitude to his favourite toys: "M doesn’t like to share so he keeps all of his toys hidden away in a bag because if he brings them out he might have to share so the Rescue Heroes was put away as soon as he got it and wasn’t seen again. This is apparently very typical for him. "He gets a plastic bag, ties it up and keeps it beside his bed". The toys are so special to him that he doesn’t want to risk sharing or breaking them.

Another mom remarked that her son "tended to use their tools as tools" . But there were two occasions where he used Rocky's hook to shoot mom in the face and she put a stop to that. He played quite intensely in the beginning but gradually their play value diminished: "they haven't left the video room and that's were he'll be in the evening so they've been close by" but not always played with. Another mother noticed that her son who had the Rescue Heroes video from Christmas decided to watch the video again after the lab visit, and when he watched the video he had the Rescue Hero toys sitting beside him "but he didn’t play with them". When his active interest in the Rescue Heroes toys waned: "he only did the one rescue and to be perfectly honest he played with them for a bit that first evening and then the next day but that was basically it". So although he liked them, the bond need to be sustained through play.

This same parent also noted that not all his play was rescue oriented: Jack she thought appeared to be used more as a tool while Rocky’s hook was used more as a weapon. " a few times he would fire the hook but he never said anything about it or had any play with it … once when his sister took his Rescue Heroes he pointed the hook at her and said I’m going to get you and he meant to use Rocky to ‘get her’." Yet this mom also noticed that her 3 year old daughter really liked the Rescue Heroes from watching her brother play with them, and she would use Jack’s hammer to pretend to dig in the ground. Active play with the toy seemed to communicate to her the fascination felt by her brother.

Generally the moms seemed particularly excited about the often pro-social or non-aggressive behaviours they witnessed in their child’s play with these toys. "I would buy him more of these because this is what I want him to become. I don't want him to become some weapon wielding guy who kicks people down and that is how he gets his way through life and so that has always been a concern of mine. And they're just such dark toys [typical action figures] and such negative messages are being sent to children through those toys. I would definitely value having an option in the marketplace for boys."

The majority believed that their child played with the Rescue Hero nicely: "there was no rough play with them, his whole play has been mellower this week" "he considers them the good guys. I don't think he'd ever consider doing anything rough with them" Gil was doing rescues in the tub with his army guys. It was very important that they were called heroes, if they had been called "construction or destruction dude that's what they would've been". Another mother testified that Gil had this effect of encouraging rescues: "I found his play to be much more cooperative when he used his Rescue Heroes, he was using them to try and be helpful, try and save each other and that would even go onto when they weren’t playing with them but they were playing with each other. They spent a lot of time saving each other from choking hazards and stuff like that. Dragging each other out of the pretend water. I think this was a bit of an improvement actually because sometimes their physical play is just purposeless roughness and they seemed to get a good sense of helping each other".

Another observed an interesting consequence of being named heroes. Her four year old "played with them everyday at least a half an hour" and she not only liked the way her child played "scuba guy went into the bath tub, saving people" but also noted that "he likes to have them watch him eat, they watch over him and protect him… He says they are hero and they are looking after him". Another mom made the same point "Q really thinks of them as heroes. He was introduced to them that way and I've never seen them play with any other toy that way. there's bad guys and good guys and they fight each other but even the good guys are fighting each other, these things aren't because they consider them heroes. They are going to play nice with them if they think of them that way…. And so it settles down their play. It has to be instilled in them young. Its hard to change a child once they get to about seven". Another made a similar comment: " Sometimes he would make them fight each other like toy soldiers." But when one of his friends came over Z introduced them as heroes -- they rescue people." They then played a bit pro-socially and a bit aggressively. I didn’t see them use the tools as weapons except for a few times with Rocky when he would shoot his hook."

For the boys that did not see the movie, the pro-social effect on their play at home was relatively diminished. Rocky seemed to be the most likely to involve fighting scenes with the toys: "I found with the projectile one [Rocky] that they were starting to fire his hook and I think that's why he was so popular because they were able to hook things and [shoot] things". A mom from the control group reported that "he mostly played with them using the rescue theme" as discussed in the lab and mostly "Rocky's (hook) was used as a tool but the fireman's axe was a weapon at first. Even that night that we were driving home from SFU he said 'look I can smash, I can destroy' and I told him that's not what that is for... but his automatic reaction was that it was a weapon, and he said so straight out". Without the video, the actions of the toy seem to define how they are to be played with. It is interesting that not one of the mothers notice their children exchanging equipment between the two Rescue Hero toys, and one third of the boys tended not to include lots of other toys in their Rescue Hero play.

Another mom felt that her son had trouble making the cognitive connection between the toys and roles. "A… got a book from the library about real life rescues, but he didn't pick up on the fact that his book was about rescues and that he had the Rescue Heroes to play with. He didn't relate the two. He may have been aware that they both involve the same type scenario but he didn't act any of the book out explicitly in his play." In fact she noted: "there was a lot of 'bang', 'bang', 'bang' that kind of stuff or fighting using the two to fight one another". She said "It sounded like there was some pro-social rescue scenarios but there was also some typical aggressive play." Another mom had talked about the difference between R.H. and the other typical super-heroes that her son has. Her son did use Billy (and his axe) to smash "see I can smash things so he still incorporated a little bit of that aggression or violence into the play with him. See we can smash or bang. He did incorporate that into the play even though in the video and so on that wasn't what that was all about." But when she pointed this out to her son saying "that's not what the Rescue Hero do... and he said 'yup' 'fine' and seemed to adapt" .

For most boys, the movie seemed to help establish not only the characters names and roles, but also the moral orientation of the Rescue Heroes Team and that the repeated viewing of the movie meant that it had a more positive effect on their play: Many of the boys in the coaching treatment watched the movie several times during the week: "he watched the movie a lot, like almost every day , if not twice a day". Watching the movie helped them learn about the heroic positioning of the characters: "he thought of them as the good guys. He knows they are the rescuers. the kids used a doll house and they were rescuing people from the house, this was right after they saw the movie, a house was on fire and they were rescuing the family. I've never seen him play like that. He also wanted to go outside and chop down a tree with the fire man, ever time he watches the movie he brings them out. He used the digger guy to poke his pop corn" when she did see them play they were rescuing or else they were just being held. "used their tools as tools not as weapons. really wanted to chop down a tree" "we played the movie and they played that way with them and normally his little friend plays with his toys aggressively but when he and my son played they played like they saw on the movie" One mom noted that her son "watched the video 6 or 7 times, initial flurry of interest but by the end of the week interest started to wane. The effects of watching were evident in the way of "talking to them or in their voices...There was a scenario around a fire and he had all his trucks all lined up around that too".

Another mother reported that "those two figures [Billy and Rocky] were his focus for 3 or 4 days but by the fourth day he was playing other things too. Saturday and Sunday he played with the boy across the hall and he shared one so they both had one. But I think because his friend hasn’t seen these shows there was no dialogue so they played as they would normally play with other toys." "They seemed to play using the toys to fight against each other but then began to use them working together against some evil force. She went on to elaborate her point: "When I say playing as they usually do, I mean playing as a team, protecting each other so it was more like Gargoyle play and it became them [the boys] using the toys as protection, more as a force more as a weapon". But she noticed more recently "They were forgotten probably the last three days, they went into his big box, I don’t even know if he knows that they are in there. I wonder if that is because he hasn’t seen the shows and he is not really pumped".

Another mom whose son saw the video only once in the lab still noted some ongoing effect from the video. She noted that the boy played with his Rescue Hero "especially in the beginning. He particularly liked the volcano idea…. "there was a lot of theme play around volcanoes, a lot of his drawings involved volcanoes after that." Another mom reported the volcano playing an important role in her sons play: " I can't remember which figure but he brought some of the other 'no name' action figures that he could rescue. He was acting out the rescue thing, like climbing on volcanoes and falling off cliffs and rescuing them from falling off the cliff". "The theme was predominantly from the movie and the other guys came into their world".

Generally, the mothers, concerned as they were about socializing their often aggressive boys, felt that rescue hero action toys are a really good idea: "I am glad that there is the Rescue Hero scenario coming out, I think its over due in lots of ways and I would like to see more of that out there and less of the 'he-men'." Another who thought they were good said she "liked the concept of them, I understand what they are trying to do, trying to create a positive role model for boys that age which is really something that boys need…. But one thing I would like to see is that I think they need to incorporate some girls too. And the other thing is that they don’t have to be so ‘testosteronized’, so ‘manly’. I think that the kids get so much of that and it would be nice to see a Rescue Heroes look like a real man, so that they don’t have to deal with the ‘Barbi-ness’ that girls have deal with throughout their lives. So I think it is a step in the right direction but I would hate to see them make the same mistakes that were made with Barbie, with boys now too" "I think that it was important to see girls in hero roles and rescuing roles, not passive roles and it would be a good thing if they [FP] could do that".

Similarly a mom said :" I’ve never really liked action figures because the action is against people or they fight each other but in this case they are rescuing somebody so they are helping others and that is a good sign." Yet this mom was bothered by the fact that there was only one woman on the team: "I think I am a feminist and it bothered me, the fact that there was only one woman and that might not be a cool message to send to the kids." Another mother reported that her son " said that he wanted the movie to be longer and he wanted to see them doing different and more rescue things". Another volunteered: "I think that there should be more toys like this available because there are a lot more of the other [violent sort of toy] out there and so I would like to see more of a balance of the Rescue Hero people. And to have a dog along or a monkey. I think the more you can create a world for the Rescue Hero and show them as doing things and having a relationship with a dog or a gorilla that’s the more that they have to play with and the more scenarios they can create". Another commented "I wanted some females to choose from in the action figures but its great that they are rescuing and protecting and all of these predicaments came up out of natural disasters and things that are real and that he could really relate to".

But as one mother noted, her son’s play style was rather fixed. For most of the week he played "good guy/bad guy situations"-- there’s good guys fighting bad guys and one is going to rescue the other one but Spiderman is always good". This mother noted that her son often used Billy to fight Spiderman and then Rocky would rescue Spiderman so they were not always on the same team. When she tried to explain to her son that Rocky was a rescue hero and could be used to save people from an avalanche, like the one that just occurred on Grouse Mt., all he said was I know and then proceeded to ignore her. She didn’t recall seeing any rescue play with Billy and his axe but with Rocky and his hook he was definitely using it to rescue Spiderman. Another mother said " all the play wasn’t positive in terms of rescuing, they weren’t playing out rescue roles all the time" but it did have pro-social elements. He liked to use the tools more as weapons and there was a lot of "chopping of body parts" but she noted that "once I tried to turn the play into a positive, so I got the toy and I was holding J’s on my lap and I said ‘what can this toy do’ and he said ‘break down doors’. And I said lets pretend my hand is a door and so he was chopping at my hand and we had fun doing that". There was another time "he was rescuing me, he used the guy to rescue me off the floor. He used the guy to pull me up." This same boy " made it clear when his friend was over, he told him what they do and how they rescue and he more or less went through what Corin did [in the lab] this is what their job is and this is what they do….I think he saw them as good guys".

Yet another mother pointed out that her son shows some resistance to changing from violent play to the style of pro-social play she would prefer with the Rescue Heroes: "If I am here and I can make him change the way of the story I would rather do that but they have their own ideas"…. " I said to Z why don’t you make up a story where he [the Rescue Heroes] is actually doing something and Z said he didn’t want to do that. ‘I don’t want to use my imagination’. Yet he is making up a story when he plays like that [violently] but I was getting him to make up a story on his own but he prefers to play with them with somebody else"… "I see that they can do that [play pro-socially] with other toys I don’t see why not with action toys, but I would probably have to sit down with them every day and reinforce it and get him to change his thoughts".

Another mom explained her view that the pro-social play themes could generalize to the boys interactions as well: "He was putting life into them [the Rescue Hero toys] and I don't know who was hurting who but one of them said you're a butt head and then the other one said no I'm not and then the other one said yes you are. And then a few minutes later I heard 'I'm sorry I called you that'. so they apologized, so I am sure from playing with other kids he has had to learn to [compromise]." Another mom spoke for many when she hoped that more attention would be paid to this issue: "So yes I think this is very positive, while it satisfies young boys' needs for the action and the danger, it doesn't have the aggressive/violent behavior associated with it. Its the cooperation and the helpfulness and the giving and the self-sacrifice which are very important lessons that are being taught in a subtle way but a very important message".

Several felt, that although the concept was good, it was a difficult task of intervening in children’s play. One mother said "I wouldn’t say anything changed, I like the idea of cooperative superhero stuff but its going to be difficult to create something for all four of these characters. These two [Rocky and Billy] do seem to go together. But if you had a building and you could create fake fisher-price flames then you might get the guy with the hook and the guy with the axe helping each other, and you could get that but you would have to dream something up like that and give the kids the situation in order to encourage it". Without these concrete details, she felt it might be difficult to get her son to play differently: "they need to come up with a mountain that breaks or the force of nature that would go with these …they need the thing they do battle against. I don’t know if R would be able to sit in a sand box and say OK there’s been an earthquake and go that far and create the act of nature I don’t think he wants to do that much work. If they came out with a thing that created all these nature catastrophes because he doesn’t want to have to do the work the mental thinking…..I’m going to create a catastrophe and then I can bring all my rescue guys in, he is not going to do that. He won’t. Other kids might but I know he won’t…he is not going to sit and dream it up."

Another noted that for her son to "switch over and have pro-social play be his main focus it would have to be on TV , at school, etc. so that it becomes more of a social norm for conflict resolution through talking through and coaching: "It takes a lot more time, and energy and thought. And it is less exciting, in terms of visually" it probably won’t work. Another said: "Its hard to get away from [the violence] you've got the Small Soldiers which are the biggest hit now, and yah I have problem with it but that's what everyone else is playing with that's what on TV, you really can't say no because that's what they want and you can't get away from it because that's all that's out there. So it's nice to see an alternative, but I think that's limited. Now lets see FP come out with something from 6-12 because that's when boys are a real problem".

Interviews with the mothers of these young boys found them all somewhat or very concerned about the difficulties of socializing ‘non-aggressive’ children. Most expressed enthusiasm at the prospect of a pro-social action toy line which could help them encourage pro-social play. In most cases the mothers felt that their sons played with, and were positively influenced by the Rescue Heroes toys they were given. Many provided detailed accounts of play scenes that illustrated what their children had learned about the ‘heroic’ and pro-social back-stories associated with these toys. The mothers were generally positive about how Rescue Heroes changed their child’s play, and some were enthusiastic.

Many boys were first attracted to the Rescue Hero toys because they are large and colourful. They clearly recognized these toys as ‘action’ figures, and deployed these figures in fighting and combat scenes similar to and often using other action toys. The axe and grappling ‘cannon’ in particular cued fighting scenes. The toy’s design on its own, does not seem sufficient to communicate the ‘rescue script’ or induce much pro-social imaginary play. Yet this does not imply that boys are disinterested in the rescue concept, but rather that it needs strong communication support. The boys after watching the video learned the names of the toys, their moral orientation, and their rescue roles and some used this knowledge of the rescue back-story in their play.

There seem to be many factors involved in encouraging and supporting pro-social play with action figures. Some of boys are not really interested in action toys, while others had strong preferences for combat oriented scenarios and immediately assimilated the Rescue Heroes into their imaginary combats despite knowing they were Rescue Heroes and "good guys". The effect of being introduced to ‘rescue play scripts’ therefore varies with their circumstance and orientation of the child and the support they received from their mothers.

We noticed that some of the boys seemed to have difficulty in thinking up imaginary situations in which rescues could be enacted other than the deeply rooted conflict rituals of super-hero scripting of action toys. A few examples of complex and imaginative use of the rescue idea in their play were noted, but only two boys revealed thematic generalization of the pro-social themes to their conversations, or their play interactions with other toys or friends. This may be due to the concrete operational "reading" of the TV series that the boys seem to make, rather than a more generalizable and imagination-enhancing creative cognitive set.

Clearly the mother’s who most supported the acquisition of pro-social play patterns reported the most creative uses of this new way of playing, indicating that personal interaction between mother and child may be one of the most important means of supporting pro-social play. We suspect this has to do with the way mother’s coaching can help provide various examples of rescue scenarios which can sustain the exploration of the Rescue Hero’s narrative possibilities. Perhaps a video series which illustrated the Rescue Hero’s in different rescue scenarios would be helpful in conveying to the boys the multiple possibilities of imaginary pro-social play.

Alexander, Alison and Margaret A. Morrison. 1995. Electronic Toyland and the Structures of Power: An Analysis of Critical Studies on Children as Consumers. CSMS, September, pp. 344-353.

Argenta, D.M., Z. Stoneman and G.H. Brody. 1986. The Effects of Three Different Television Programs on Young Children’s Peer Interactions and Toy Play. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 355-371.

Blurton Jones, N.G. 1984. An Ethological Study of Some Aspects of Social Behaviour of Children in Nursery School. Primate Ethology, chapter ten, pp. 347-367.

Bjornebekk. 1992. Commercialization of children’s television-the market force’s invasion of children’s everyday lives? Paper presented in the IAMCR Scientific Conference, Brazil.

Brougere, Gilles. 1987. Play and Culture: The Child between the World of Yesterday and the World of Tomorrow. pp. 149-157 in Eva Balke, ed., Play and Culture, OMEP Seminar OSLO.

Brougere, Gilles and Christine Pincemaille. 1996. From TV-show to game: The Power Rangers example. From the International Toy Research Conference session nr:5.

Brougere, Gilles. 1992. Le jouet, objet extreme. Psychologie Sociale, Septembre, pp.37-43.

Brougere, Gilles. Cinema et jouet: l’exemple du Bossu de Notre-Dame des studios Disney. From GREC, Universite Paris-Nord.

Brougere, Gilles (Virginie Prat) English summary Virginie Prat, Student of the Dess en Sciences du Jeu with Gilles Brougère 1998.

Carlson-Paige, N and D. Levin. 1987. The War Play Dilemma: Children’s Needs and Society’s Future. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press.

Carlson-Paige, and D Levin, 1988. Young Children and War Play, Educational Leadership Vol 45 (4) pg 80-84.

Cohn, Janice. 1996. Raising Compassionate, Courageous Children In A Violent World. Atlanta, Georgia: Longstreet Press.

Copple, Carol K. , Rodney R. Cocking and Wendy S. Matthews. 1983. Objects, Symbols, and Substitutes: The Nature of the Cognitive Activity during Symbolic Play. In Rubin, K. The Play of Children: Current Theory and Research, Basel New york: Krager .pp. 105-123.

Davie, C.E., S.J. Hutt, Ed. Vincent and M. Mason. 1984. The Young Child at Home. Winsor: NFER_Nelson.

Eaton, B. Carol and Dominick, Joseph R. 1991. Product-related Programming and Children’s TV: A Content Analysis. Journalism Quarterly, vol 68 (1/2) Spring/Summer, pp. 67-75.

Eisenberg, Nancy, Sharlene A. Wolchik, Robert Hernandez and Jeannette F. Pasternack. 1985. Parental Socialization of Young Children’s Play. Child Development, vol. 56, pp. 1506-1513.

Funkhouser, G. Ray, Eugene F. Shaw. 1990. How Synthetic Experience Shapes Social Reality. Journal of Communication, vol. 40 (2) Spring, pp. 75-87.

Furby, Lita and Mary Wilke. 1982. Some Characteristics of Infants’ Preferred Toys. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol 140, pp. 207-219.

Greenfield, Patricia Marks, Emily Yut, Mabel Chung, Deborah Land, Holly Kreider, Maurice Pantoja and Kris Horsley. 1990. The Program-Length Commercial: a Study of the Effects of Television/ Toy Tie-Ins on Imaginative Play. Psychology & Marketing , vol. 7 (4) winter, pp. 237-255.

Goldstein, Jeffery and J. Jukes. 1993. Preference for aggressive toys. International Play Journal, vol. 1, pp. 81-91.

Goldstein, Jeffery, Sex differences in toy play and use of video games. Pp 110 in Goldstein, Jeffery (ed.), 1994. Toys, Play and Child Development, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Humphreys, Anne P. and Peter K. Smith. 1987. Rough and Tumble, Friendship, and Dominace in Schoolchildren: Evidence for Continuity and Change with Age. Child Development, vol. 58, pp. 201-212.

Karpoe, Delly and Rachel Olney. 1983. The Effect of Boys’ or Girls’ Toys on Sex-typed Play in Pre-adolescents. Sex Roles, vol 9 (4) pp 507-18.

Kincheloe, Joe and S. Steinberg. 1997. Kindercult: The Corporate Construction of Childhood. Boulder, Wesview Press.

Kline, Stephen. 1988. The Limits to the Imagination: Children’s Play in the Age of Marketing. in I Angus and S Jhally, eds. Cultural Politics in America. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kline, Stephen. 1991. Lets Make a Deal: Merchandising im US-Kinderfernseden. Media Perspektiven, vol. 4, pp. 220-34.

Kline, Stephen. 1993. Out of the Garden: Toys and Children’s Culture in the Age of TV Marketing. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Kline, Stephen. 1995. The Promotion and Marketing of Toys: Time to Rethink the Paradox? In Anthony D. Pellegrini, ed., The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany: State University of New York. pp. 165-185.

Knight, Jane. 1984. Television: Plague or Play Partner? International Association for the Child’s Right to Play, vol VIII, Jan, pp. 5-6.

Liss, Marsha. 1981. Patterns of Toy Play: An Analysis of Sex Differences. Sex Roles vol 7. (11) pp 1143-50

Liss, Marsha, ed. 1983. Social and Cognitive Skills: Sex Roles and Children’s Play. New York: Academic Press.

MacBeth, Tannis M. 1996. Tuning into Young Viewers: Social science perspective on television. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding media: the extension of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Media Watch. 1995. Action Bulletin. Toronto: Media Watch.

Mouritsen, Fleming. 1997 Child Culture –Play Culture in Childhood and Children’s Culture, Esbjerg Denmark Proceedings published by South Jutland University Centre

Pecora, Norma. 1995. Children and Television Advertising from a Social Science Perspective. CSMS , Review and Criticism, September, pp. 354-364.

Pulaski, Mary. 1973 Toys and Imaginative Play in Singer ed The Child's World of Make Believe. Academic Press NY..

Pellegrini, Anthony. D. 1995. Boys’ Rough-and-Tumble Play and Social Competence: Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Relations. In Anthony D. Pellegrini, ed., The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany: State University of New York, pp. 107-126.

Reeves, Byron and M. Mark Miller. 1978. A Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Identification with Television Characters. Journal of Broadcasting, vol. 22 (1), winter, pp. 71-86.

Rieckien, Glen and Ugur Yavas. 1990. Children’s General, Product and Brand Specific Attitudes Towards Television Commercials: Implications for Public Policy and Advertising Strategy. Integrated Journal of Advertising, 9, pp.136-148.

Smith, Peter K. 1995. ‘ Play, Ethology, and Education: A Personal Account’. In Anthony D. Pillegrini, ed., The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, State University of New York. pp. 3-21.

Smith, Peter K. 1994. The War Play Debate, pp 67-84 in Goldstein, Jeffery (ed.), Toys, Play and Child Development, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Singer, Jerome L. and Dorothy G. Singer. 1981. Television, Imagination, and Aggression: a study of Preschools. New Jersey: LEA Publishing.

Singer, Jerome, (1994) Imaginative play and adaptive development. P 6-26 in Goldstein, Jeffery (ed.), 1994. Toys, Play and Child Development, University of Cambridge: Cambridge.

Snow, Robert P. 1974. How Children Interpret TV Violence in Play Context. Journalism Quarterly, vol. 51 (1), pp. 13-21.

Sutton-Smith, Brian and May Ann Magee. 1988. War toys and childhood aggression. Play and Culture, vol. 1, pp. 57-69.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Tanner, Ron. 1994. Toy Robots in America, 1955-75: How Japan Really Won the War. Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 28 (3), pp. 125-154.

Tedja, Zuhra. 1994. Creative Play Behaviour with Media-Based and Neutral Toys. Research report submitted for CMNS 320.

Varney, Wendy, (forthcoming). "Toys, play and participation" in Brian Martin (ed.), Technology and Public Participation Also at Webstite http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/TPP/tableofcontents.html

Varney, Wendy 1995 "Playing into Corporate Hands: The Hyper-Commercialisation of Children’s Toys" in Stephen Frith, Barbara Biggins and Tracy Newlands (eds.), Marketing Toys: It’s Child’s Play, New College Institute for Values Research, , pp. 57-65.

Wegener-Spohring, Gisela. 1994. War toys and aggressive play scenes. In Goldstein’s Toys, Play and Child Development, chapter 5, pp. 85-109.

Wilson, Barbara J. and Audrey J. Weiss. 1992. Developmental Differences in Children’s Reactions to a Toy Advertisement Linked to a Toy-Based Cartoon. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Fall, pp. 371-394.

Wolf, Thomas M. 1975. Response Consequences To Televised Modeled Sex-Inappropriate Play Behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, vol. 127, pp. 35-44.