‘Out of the mouths of babes’ – capturing young children's perceptions of disability through the use of diversity dolls

ABSTRACT

This study utilises diversity dolls to elicit young children's perceptions of visual disabilities. The study which involved 20 participants aged between six to seven years old suggests that although many children have positive attitudes towards peers with physical disabilities, attitudes are often grounded in the deficit medical model, with concepts related to assistive devices, medical causes, social consequences, and dependency. The study contributes to the literature through its use of a child centred method and open discussion, which enabled children to offer their innermost thoughts that might have otherwise remained hidden. Some of the comments gathered were quite derogatory, particularly with regards to facial features, and without disability awareness education children risk carrying negative and hostile views into adulthood. Methods which help to unearth children's core belief structures about disability provide an important foundation on which early years practitioners can build intervention programs which critically examine social inequalities and deconstruct dominant discourses, helping young children to develop positive attitudes towards disability.

KEYWORDS:

• Visual disability
• stereotypes
• social biases
• early childhood
• diversity dolls

Introduction

Societal prejudice

Hate crimes towards people with disabilities have occurred throughout history and globally across different cultural groups (Munyi 2012; Taylor 2019). In the UK, 14,242 disability hate crime incidents were recorded in England and Wales during 2021/2022, compared with 9943 in the previous year (UK GOV 2022). Figures indicate that whereas 82% of all hate crimes are motivated by race/ethnicity, only 5% are motivated by hostility towards disabled people (Official Crime Statistics 2015). However, various complexities mask the true extent of disability hate crime. The UK Disability Survey, which gathered the views of 16,651 people with disabilities, report that 58% of respondents had been mistreated, 31% had faced online abuse and 15% had experienced violence (UK GOV 2021). Only 29% of respondents who had experienced harassment or violence had officially reported it, despite continuing to feel unsafe in their neighbourhood (UK GOV 2021). Although people with disabilities are most at risk of experiencing violence compared to people with other protected characteristics under the UK Equality Act 2010, they are less likely to have their incidents investigated by the police (Macdonald, Donovan, and Clayton 2017). Rather than disability hate crime being rare, it is suggested that many disabled people fail to report their experiences as the perpetrator is often a family member, friend or employed carer (Macdonald, Donovan, and Clayton 2017).

Emerging concepts

Investigating social biases in early childhood is important as it is during this period that attitudes towards human difference(s) are formed, including children’s conceptualisations of disability (Yıldırım Hacıibrahimoğlu 2022). Cultural beliefs about disability, as an inherently negative state of being, are disseminated to children through cultural discourses. Ableist narratives about the human body, based on medical model ideology, are enacted to children through media, toys, literature and educational practices (Bacon and Lalvani 2019). Medical narratives expose children to the view that impairment is a universal physiological or psychological state of being, that should be pitied, feared, cured, or accommodated so that the individual can fit into society (Baglieri et al. 2011; Stamou, Alevriadou, and Soufla 2016), which can lead to normalcy, othering and exclusion (Gillberg 2021). Internalising cultural schemas, children begin to recognise that some bodies and ways of being are considered to be non-normative and undesirable (Lalvani and Bacon 2019).

Children’s evaluations of others are often based on ‘similarity to self’ (Demetriou 2021). Developmental theories suggest that from the age of four years, children begin to recognise visual disabilities (Demetriou 2021; Diamond 1993) and may make assumptions regarding the abilities of people with a physical disability (Babik and Gardner 2021), with abstract concepts emerging from age seven years (Jones 2021). However, developmental theories should be considered with caution as they fail to acknowledge children as competent beings who are active in constructing the social worlds in which they participate (James and Prout 2015). While children may enact cultural schemas that sustain normative identities and a privileged position for people without disabilities, some children develop competing meaning systems associated with human rights and equality of opportunity to redefine and reject normative discourses (Beckett 2014; Hamilton and Dynes 2023).

Profiling children’s concepts of disability, their belief structures and patterns of behaviour, provides early years practitioners a baseline on which to design appropriate and meaningful curricula which can promote positive understanding and challenge reductionist thinking that might otherwise be carried into adulthood (Armstrong et al. 2016; Gasser, Malti, and Buholzer 2014). Despite Beckett’s call for further research in this area (Beckett 2014; 2015), there remains little attention to the ways that young children begin to construct ideas about people with disabilities (Bacon and Lalvani 2019). Thus, this article adds to the literature on the development of social biases. The study aims to (i) utilise diversity dolls to engage children in open discussion about visual disability, (ii) capture children’s emerging perceptions regarding disability and (iii) provide a foundation on which early years practitioners can develop approaches that promote positive understanding about disability.

Schools and classrooms

In the UK, less than 10% of children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) attend special schools, most are enrolled in mainstream education (Mencap 2023). There is extensive evidence that children with disabilities are at significant risk of being bullied and excluded (National Children’s Bureau 2022; Peters 2021) and have fewer friendships (Broomhead 2019; Ferreira et al. 2019; Pinto, Baines, and Bakopoulou 2019) than children without disabilities. Children’s decisions about whether to include peers with disabilities are often dependent on the nature of the disability and the physical demands of the activity (Diamond and Hong 2010; Firat, Bildiren, and Demiral 2022). A child’s age, gender, socioeconomic status and cognitive ability also determine the likelihood of a child with disabilities encountering exclusionary attitudes (Chatzitheochari, Parsons, and Platt 2016; Yıldırım Hacıibrahimoğlu 2022). Children tend to view peers with physical difficulties more favourably than those with a social, emotional, intellectual, or behavioural disability (Babik and Gardner 2021; Yıldırım Hacıibrahimoğlu 2022), as children with the latter differences may struggle with the social skills and behaviours required for making friends, responding to social situations and reading social cues (Baurain, Nader-Grosbois, and Dionne 2013). Discrimination and the stigma of ‘being different’ can exacerbate a child’s feelings of difference and non-belonging (Rydzewska et al. 2019), which can be detrimental to their psychological, social and educational development (Babik and Gardner 2021; Chatzitheochari, Parsons, and Platt 2016). This might explain why children with disabilities are more susceptible to poorer mental health than children without disabilities (Asbury et al. 2021).

Disability awareness

Lalvani and Bacon (2019) assert that not only are disability and ableism often left unaddressed within early childhood education, but ideologies of normalcy relating to the human body are frequently manufactured and reproduced in classrooms via preschool rhymes, songs, stories and visual representations. The absence of disability across the curriculum and silences around why some children look and function differently, risks the emergence of reductionist beliefs (Armstrong et al. 2016; Lalvani and Bacon 2019).

Beckett (2015) identified three pedagogical approaches used by schools to address disability: Pedagogy 1 ‘Education About the Other’ which studies disabled people’s ways of being and celebrates human diversity. Pedagogy 2 ‘Education that is Critical of Privileging and Othering’ which examines the social creation of disability and inequality. Pedagogy 3 ‘Education that Changes Students and Society’ which promotes critical dialogue around social norms and practices. Many disability scholars, particularly those whose views align to Disability Studies in Education (DSE), assert it crucial that educators move beyond ‘Education About the Other’ and medical and social models of disability typically used to define non-typical physiological and psychological performativity. Instead, they advocate the need to incorporate holistic understandings, radical thinking and critical dialogue into anti-oppressive education (Beckett 2015; Symeonidou and Loizou 2018). Unfortunately, disability awareness often remains focused on teaching non-disabled children to respect people with disabilities, exposing children to binaries of the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ (Symeonidou and Loizou 2018).

DSE is an interdisciplinary area of study rooted in the field of Disability and involves the critical appraisal of the cultural conditions in which educational policy and practices are performed (Bacon and Baglieri 2021). DSE draws upon a range of disciplines (e.g. sociology, education, psychology, history, social policy, arts) and critical theories (e.g. feminism, post-structuralism) to examine and disrupt the political, economic, social and cultural discourses that marginalise and oppress. Key commitments relate to acknowledging the social construction of disability, able-bodied privilege, power and oppression; problematising societal and school discourses that essentialise, medicalise and position people with disabilities as ‘othered’; the absence and misrepresentation of disability across the curriculum; rejecting deficit models of disability and challenging ableism; recognising the embodied experiences of people whose lives are made meaningful as disabled; including people with disabilities in theorising about disability; and the accurate portrayal of people with disabilities (Connor and Gabel 2013; Lalvani and Bacon 2019). By incorporating alternative beliefs into classrooms, first person narratives, affirming language and intersectionality, early years practitioners can encourage children to question concepts of normalcy and oppression. Approaches that enable children to have regular, purposeful and positive sociable encounters with people with disabilities, including scenarios and social situations that young children can relate to, are more likely to result in children’s increased understanding, empathy and emotional intelligence relating to issues of disability and ableism (Armstrong et al. 2016; Babik and Gardner 2021; Wilkins et al. 2016).

Using a DSE lens, Lalvani and Bacon (2019) utilise Derman-Sparks and Edwards’s (2010) anti-bias education framework to suggest how young children can be helped to think radically about disability, ableism, and inclusivity, and deconstruct problematic discourses about how the human body should look and function. Pedagogical approaches recommended include carefully selected resources (e.g. books, songs, rhymes, artwork) that incorporate and celebrate non-traditional body types, activities that require children to adapt learning and play spaces for peers with a mobility or sensory difference, and critical questions posed by teachers which encourage children to explore power dynamics and inequities in society, concepts of fairness and accessibility, and the impact of stereotypes. Their paper offers an important read to early years practitioners.

Methods

Approach

The study employed a visual and tactile technique that was based on a familiar form of pedagogy typically used with young children – diversity dolls. Such methods allow for greater ownership for children in that they reduce the emphasis on the written and spoken word, achieving a better balance between the adult researcher and child participant (Nind 2017; Sanders 2018). This is important because despite the shift towards participatory research more work needs to be done with young children and children with disabilities as their views are often overlooked either because of over-cautious adult gatekeepers who situate children within a discourse of vulnerability or inappropriate data collection methods (Coyne and Carter 2018; Gray and Winter 2011).

Context and participants

The research, conducted by a classroom assistant known to the participants, was undertaken in a Year 2 class of a suburban primary school located in the West Midlands region of England. The 20 children involved, aged between six and seven years old, consisted of 10 girls and 10 boys. All children were white British and had English as their first language. Five of the children wore glasses and five were identified as having SEND; one child was hearing impaired, and four children had social, emotional, and behavioural needs.

Piloting

Prior to the study five children aged between five to ten years old were introduced to the diversity dolls and questions posed. As a result, some of the language used within the questions was amended to ensure that the children understood what was being asked. Piloting suggested that the children were keen to be engaged in the activity, confirmation that was felt to be required, particularly for male participants, before involving a larger group of children.

Data collection

The children were asked questions relating to friendships, temperament, intelligence and physical skills about six dolls (Figure 1). Five of the dolls had the following disabilities: visual impairment, hearing impairment, mobility impairment, cleft palate and Down’s syndrome. The sixth doll was presented without any obvious disability.

Figure 1. Diversity dolls.

Questions:

1. Which doll has more friends? Why do you think this?

2. Which doll would you be friends with? Why do you think this?

3. Who is the best at football? Why do you think this?

4. Who is the best dancer? Why do you think this?

5. Who is the cleverest at school? Why do you think this?

6. Who is the naughtiest at school (most likely to get into trouble)? Why do you think this?

7. Who is the best behaved at school (least likely to get into trouble)? Why do you think this?

8. Who would you be more likely to play with? Why do you think this?

9. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about the dolls?

The researcher worked with the children on a one-to-one basis in a quiet area of the classroom. This was done to prevent reserved children from feeling overpowered by their more confident peers, to avoid participants influencing each other’s ideas, and to reduce any embarrassment that playing with dolls (traditionally a female toy) might have caused. Before undertaking the activity, each child was given an opportunity to handle the dolls. The researcher attempted to create open discussion in a safe space where children could feel at ease to share their ideas and ask questions without fear of prejudice. Using simple language and topics that children could relate to, the children were informed that there were no right or wrong answers. After responding to a question, they were invited but not pressured to justify their answer. Once the questions had been asked the children were given time to play with the dolls. The interviews were audio-recorded and observational notes made of children interacting with the dolls during free play. The researcher tried to remain impartial by not contributing to the children’s conversations or showing any sign of approval or disapproval.

Diversity dolls are commonly used with young children to address issues relating to personal, social, and emotional development (Srinivasan and Cruz 2015) and aspects of human diversity and equality (Nutbrown 2011). Many studies document the positive impact diversity dolls can have on emotional literacy as they make it easier for children to engage in complex dialogues and provide opportunities for critical thinking and problem-solving (Srinivasan and Cruz 2015), where children can begin to comprehend and express their thoughts and feelings (Horgan 2017; Smith 2013). They have been found to be particularly effective for use with children with developmental delay and communication impairments (Saha et al. 2014).

Ethics

Ethical approval was gained through university procedures, and access and informed consent obtained via the headteacher and parents/guardians. Before undertaking the activity, the purpose of the study was explained to the children, what their involvement would entail, and that they could refuse to engage and withdraw at any stage, including choosing not to answer certain questions. To gain their verbal assent the children were then asked if they had any questions and if they still wished to participate.

Adhering to the guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA 2018) the anonymity of the school and children has been preserved through pseudonyms. Key values outlined by BERA (2018) is that children should be treated with dignity, they should feel at ease, and methods used to be appropriate for the child’s age and ability. Thus, the activity was undertaken in the children’s classroom, a familiar pedagogical technique used, and the children were given the freedom to ask questions and make additional comments. Aware that children’s non-verbal communication was also important, the researcher remained vigilant of children showing any signs of discomfort or unwillingness to participate. Each child was given a flashcard that they could display to signify that they wished to withdraw from the process. This however was not used as the children engaged in the activity with enthusiasm.

Analysis

Drawing upon an inductive approach, which allowed the themes to emerge from the children’s narratives, data was analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006; Clarke and Braun 2017). The first stage of the process involved multiple readings of data to discover all dialogue related to ableism and disability. Children’s comments were closely inspected and categorised according to either a ‘social’ or ‘medical’ concept of disability.

Reoccurring incidents were summarised to produce common patterns of meaning and frequency counts, and contradictions and inconsistencies were also noted. The final stage involved examining the discourses which ran within and across the emerging themes against empirical research and disability theories.

Results and discussion

The findings represent the views of 20 children, aged between six to seven years old, who engaged in an activity involving six diversity dolls and accompanying questions. The questions encouraged the children to consider which doll they would choose to be friends with, and perceptions of the dolls’ intellectual and physical competence, and their temperament. Thematic analysis led to the emergence of three key themes: friendships, abilities and behaviour. In line with previous research (Beckett 2014; Demetriou 2021; Freer 2023) the children’s narratives were centred around the medicalisation of impairment (causes and assistive devices), binary opposition regarding the competency of the human body (normal v abnormal), and social consequences (support/dependency) to define disability.

Most apparent was the high level of interest the children displayed towards the doll with the mobility impairment and the positive comments made about this doll in all areas of discussion. However, many of the children’s responses can be aligned to the medical model of disability. Before exploring the emerging themes, it should be noted that other than the identified SEND needs of five of the participants, there was no knowledge of children’s experience of disability outside of school. Although the children had not received any formal teaching on disability, they had weekly ‘Difference’ lessons which emphasised social and moral development, and the importance of being kind to others. This, together with personal experiences encountered, might explain why some of the children offered unprompted remarks about human diversity as being something that should be respected and valued.

Boy K:

I like that the dolls are all different. It wouldn’t be good if they were the same.

Girl A:

You shouldn’t make fun of children if they’ve got problems like being in a wheelchair or wearing hearing aids. It’s not nice. It’s good to be different.

Unfortunately, as the paper will proceed to show there were children who held derogatory beliefs about people with disabilities. The diversity dolls seem to have been effective in eliciting children’s innermost thoughts which might have otherwise remained unrevealed. However, appropriate intervention, based on DSE ideology, is now required to challenge negative views for without doing so, they risk advancing into adulthood and serving as the foundation to future disability hate crimes.

Friendships

When asked which doll would have more friends and, which doll the children would be most likely to choose as a friend and play with, the doll with the mobility impairment (depicted in a wheelchair) was selected 26 times; it was significantly more popular than any other doll (Table 1).

Table 1. Perceptions regarding friendships.

Diversity doll	More friends?	Your friend?	Who would play with?	Total
Mobility impaired	8	10	8	26
No apparent disability	5	3	3	11
Down syndrome	3	3	4	10
Hearing impaired	3	4	1	8
Visually impaired	2	0	3	5
Cleft palate	1	0	1	2

Reasons given by the children for selecting the doll with the mobility impairment centred around two narratives – the wheelchair looked ‘cool’ and ‘fun to push’ and the doll was ‘special’, ‘poorly’ or ‘unable to move’ and so ‘required help’. Children’s comments included:

Girl A:

Everyone wants to be her friend because she’s special, she’s in a wheelchair.

Girl B:

Everyone will want to help her because she broke her leg.

Boy D:

Everyone likes the wheelchair … it’s so cool and different.

Girl J:

I can push her round the playground. We can have fun and one day she might be able to run with me.

Girl L:

I can teach the one in the wheelchair to do things and me and this one (doll with no disability) can look after her. She might not feel good about coming to school. Everyone might make fun of her. But I will stand up for her.

As evidenced by Wilkins et al. (2016), Demetriou (2021) and Moriña and Carnerero (2022), the current study also suggests that many children held positive attitudes towards people in a wheelchair. However, the children’s responses indicated that many were captivated by the wheelchair rather than by the doll itself, thus the assistive device may have skewed the children’s attention towards this specific disability. Faucett et al. (2017) assert that although assistive devices play an important role in enhancing human abilities they often serve as markers for disability by rendering a person’s hidden condition visible. Just as clothing may expose people to an ‘othered’ and stigmatised identity, observable assistive devices can result in people with disabilities being pitied, viewed incapable and may make others uncertain of how to interact (Faucett et al. 2017). Several children discussed how they wanted to befriend the doll in the wheelchair to ‘support, include, care and protect’ them. Likewise, of the children who stated they would make friends with the doll with the hearing impairment, three explained it was to make sure that they would not feel ‘lonely’ and ‘sad’, while the fourth child (Boy E) said it was because the doll resembled his own appearance. Boy E did not offer detailed responses and wanted to leave the activity to join his friends in the classroom, but from the comments he made it seemed as though he had a good friendship group at school.

Boy E:

I’d be friends with this one because he has hearings aids and looks like me. I like hearing aids it helps me hear.

Although the discussions implied that many of the children held positive beliefs towards people with disabilities, responses were laced with deficit thinking. The disadvantage, dependency and pity expressed is associated with the medical and charity models of disability which risks perceiving people with visual disabilities as needy and incompetent (Akin and Huang 2021). The comments made by Girl B and Girl J show how some children might view the use of the wheelchair and impairment as a temporary phase, which Green et al. (2005) propose may prevent individuals with a mobility impairment from being ‘othered’.

The second doll highlighted as most likely to have friends and who the children wanted to be friends with was the doll without an apparent disability. Children’s comments alluded that this was because there was ‘nothing wrong or weird’ with the doll.

Girl Q:

That one because it won’t be weird, and everyone would want to be friends.

Boy F:

I like the look of it. It doesn’t have anything wrong with it.

Although the doll without an apparent disability was the second most popular choice, one child (Girl N) voiced her concerns about this doll. Her reasoning appeared to be connected to a personal experience she had encountered which may have heightened her empathy towards people with physical disabilities and the desire to include.

Girl N:

She (doll with no apparent disability) would be mean to the others because she has nothing wrong with her. It’s about how they look. If she was playing a game and someone with special needs asked to play, she’d say no because she has hearing aids. [Jane] said that to me because I have eczema.

During the free play session which followed the discussion, Girl N picked up the doll with no apparent disability and stated, ‘I’m a big bully. You are so weird’, then holding the doll with Down syndrome said, ‘I wish she would stop teasing us’. Children’s concerns about the dolls with disabilities having few or no friends at school may be justified as there is much evidence documenting how children with disabilities are at significant risk of being bullied and socially excluded in mainstream settings (Chatzitheochari, Parsons, and Platt 2016; National Children’s Bureau 2022; Peters 2021). Interestingly, although children with physical and sensory differences tend to be viewed more favourably than those with a social, emotional, intellectual, or behavioural disability (Babik and Gardner 2021; Yıldırım Hacıibrahimoğlu 2022), in the present study the doll with Down syndrome was a more popular choice for friendship than the dolls with sensory impairments. Two children stated that this was because the doll with Down syndrome ‘looked friendly’ and ‘had a nice smile’. Baurain, Nader-Grosbois, and Dionne (2013) discuss how children with Down syndrome often have heightened social interactive skills and empathy but that delays in cognition, language and social independence frequently impact their ability to establish and maintain friendships.

Abilities

The children were asked to consider the intellectual and physical abilities of the dolls. As illustrated in Table 2, the doll with the mobility impairment was regarded by far to be the cleverest. Children’s reasoning related to the doll being ‘sensible’ and ‘able to sit nicely’, that they had ‘learned a lot while in hospital’ and that the ‘wheelchair made them look clever’.

Table 2. Perceptions regarding intellectual and physical abilities.

Diversity doll	Cleverest?	Best at dancing?	Best at football?	Total
Mobility impaired	11	5	1	17
No apparent disability	1	6	2	9
Down syndrome	1	2	9	12
Hearing impaired	2	5	4	11
Visually impaired	7	3	1	11
Cleft palate	0	0	2	2

The doll with the visual impairment was the second to be selected for their intellectual capability. Responses centred around people who wear spectacles as being ‘clever’, ‘nerdy’ and ‘keen learners’.

Girl L:

The one with glasses because glasses are nerdy, and it makes them look super clever and well behaved.

Boy P:

He has good memory. He wears glasses, so it makes him clever.

Although research on children’s perceptions of spectacle-wearing is limited, in line with the current study, literature suggests that children make both positive and negative judgments of their peers who wear glasses. Children aged between five to nine years old tend to find their peers without glasses more attractive, however, many relate wearing glasses with heightened intelligence and honesty (Jellesma 2013; Walline et al. 2008). Walline et al. (2008) suggest that children’s association between glasses and intelligence may be influenced by screen-based media portrayals for children of clever characters wearing glasses.

When asked which doll would be the best dancer, six children opted for the doll without an apparent disability because they had ‘nothing wrong’ with them. However, the responses were not consistent as the doll in the wheelchair and the doll with the hearing impairment came a close joint second. All five children who chose the doll with the mobility impairment made positive comments about wheelchairs not having to stop people from doing things that they enjoy, and people in wheelchairs ‘look nice dancing’. Similarly, the five children who selected the doll with the hearing impairment said that it would not prevent people from being good at dancing.

Boy K:

Even in wheelchairs they can dance. They just can’t be lifted or thrown in the air.

Girl A:

She can still dance, just with her arms (moves doll’s arms).

Boy D:

They would dance in the wheelchair and look nice dancing.

Historically ‘visibility of disability’ has significantly lowered expectations of people’s athletic abilities because of stereotypes about the inability of disabled bodies (Peers 2009). However, the gradual increase in on-screen representation of people with disabilities might be having a positive impact on the assumptions children hold about certain areas of sport. For example, family entertainment shows in the UK such as Dancing on Ice and Strictly Come Dancing have portrayed people with physical and sensory disabilities competing alongside able-bodied contenders. Action for Children (2022) report that despite disabled people making up 18% of the national population in the UK on-screen representations of disabled people remain low at 8.3%, but that children’s entertainment ranks the highest of all genres for its portrayal of characters with disabilities. Recommending programmes for young children such as Goldie and Bear, Sesame Street and Pablo, Action for Children (2022) asserts it is essential that accurate, realistic and varied narratives are shown rather than characters who have storylines framed solely around their disability. They argue that this form of representation not only provides children who have disabilities with a figure they can connect to, but that it also educates children without disabilities (Action for Children 2022).

When asked who the best footballer would be, nine of the children selected the doll with Down syndrome. Comments mainly related to the perceived strength of the doll. This response could have been because this was the only doll which had hair, causing the children to perceive it to be older than the other dolls.

Boy K:

That one would be strong and kick good goals.

The doll with the cleft palate was also believed to be physically strong. Stereotypes based on physical appearance, in particular facial features, are discussed in further detail within the next theme.

Girl N:

It is very big and strong, so can get back up when it hurts itself.

This was the only category the children had rated the doll against which might indicate that they had little knowledge about what cleft palate involved and so were unable to gauge the doll’s abilities. Wilkins et al. (2016) showed that children expressed significant interest and empathy towards individuals who had disabilities they were familiar with (such as a hearing and a visual impairment) compared to those they knew little about, and where characters struggled to complete activities, they could relate to such as bike riding.

Behaviour

When asked about the temperament of the dolls, the answers were extreme. The doll with the mobility impairment was considered the best behaved (least likely to get into trouble with their teacher) and the doll with Down syndrome was thought to be the worst behaved (most likely to get into trouble with their teacher) (Table 3).

Table 3. Perceptions regarding temperament.

Diversity doll	Worst behaved?	Best behaved?
Mobility impaired	1	8
No apparent disability	1	4
Down syndrome	11	2
Hearing impaired	4	2
Visually impaired	1	3
Cleft palate	1	1

The children explained that the doll in the wheelchair was the best behaved because they were unable to misbehave due to a ‘lack of movement’ and ‘limited opportunities to get into trouble’. Although perceived as being the ‘best behaved’ sounds positive, views relating to an inability to move or to do anything wrong and having to sit at the back of the classroom away from other children because of the impairment, are reflective of deficit discourse associated with the medical model of disability.

Girl A:

She can’t move fast. She can’t run away. She will never be in the headteacher's office.

Boy D:

They can’t move, so can’t do anything wrong. They just sit in the back of the class.

Boy E:

He’s sensible because he’s in a wheelchair.

All four children who identified the doll without an apparent disability as being the best behaved said it was because they had not ‘got problems’ or ‘anything wrong’ with them. In contrast the four children who said the doll with the hearing impairment, the second to be rated as the worst behaved, explained it was because they would ‘not know what to do in class’ and would therefore ‘get in trouble’.

However, selected by 11 children, the doll with Down syndrome was significantly ranked as the worst behaved doll. Although two of the children explained that the doll misbehaved because it ‘didn’t like’ and ‘couldn’t do’ learning, most discussed the doll’s facial features. The exact reason why the children linked the doll’s facial features to negative behavioural traits remains unclear although as the comments below suggest it may be because the doll’s features were considered ‘undesirable’. Jellesma (2013) explains schemata of faces are formed in infancy and often lead to young children making assumptions about people’s personality purely on facial features. Enea-Drapeau, Huguet, and Carlier (2014) found that physically attractive people tend to be associated with desirable personality traits and treated more favourably by others. The same study also reported how assumptions, linked to intelligence, kindness and friendliness, were often made about children with Down syndrome.

Girl J:

It’s face looks different. It’s got a weird look about it, naughty.

Girl B:

It throws stuff at people, stupid ugly person.

Many studies have reported how children’s perceptions towards their peers with intellectual and developmental disabilities are less positive compared to peers with a physical disability and peers with no disability (Babik and Gardner 2021; Freer 2023; Yıldırım Hacıibrahimoğlu 2022), and that there is a high risk of victimisation for these individuals (Sarrett and Ucar 2021). Internalisation of stigma in individuals with developmental intellectual disabilities can lead to negative self-esteem and poor psychological well-being, with the self-concept of children with Down syndrome particularly low (Huber et al. 2018; Saha et al. 2014). Jellesma (2013) claims that where children with disabilities hold their peers in high regard, they risk conforming to assumed stereotypes, for example ‘‘They think I look stupid or ugly, so I must be stupid or ugly’’.

During the free play session, several children enacted scenarios and offered additional dialogue which linked various personality traits to the facial features of the dolls. Some of the children were extremely open about their views, descriptions which could be considered offensive and in urgent need of addressing.

Boy G:

He looks really weird. I hate him he’s dumb (doll with Down syndrome). I hate him because he wears glasses (doll with visual impairment). He looks terrible because he has a cut lip (doll with cleft palate).

Boy O:

They all look smart and handsome apart from that one, he’s a bully (doll with Down syndrome).

Girl Q:

This is my favourite, it’s really cool (doll with cleft palate). Its lip makes it look like a dog.

Girl A:

She’s nice because she looks different and wonderful (doll with cleft palate). Overhearing the comment Girl B responded ‘eww her cut lip is gross. It looks disgusting. She’s naughty and farts in people's faces.’

Boy D:

Naughty, naughty (dolls with disabilities). This is good (doll without disabilities).

Increasing exposure to social media is causing children and young people to hold unrealistic beauty ideals (Golden and Jacoby 2018; Gutierrez et al. 2020). Consequently, many children are becoming dissatisfied with their physical appearance. Girlguiding UK (2018) suggests that only 51% of children aged between seven to ten years old are happy with their appearance and 36% of young people would do ‘whatever it takes’ to look good (Mental Health Foundation 2021). In the quest for flawless faces and perfect bodies there is a relationship between not meeting the societal ideal and victimisation and low psychological wellbeing (Chatzitheochari, Parsons, and Platt 2016; Saha et al. 2014). Drawing upon Goffman’s theory of stigma and a spoiled identity (1963), individuals whose stigmatised characteristics are immediately apparent to others, such as ‘non-typical’ facial features, often become discredited and are at risk of being singled out, excluded, or bullied, impacting their psychological well-being. Children with Down syndrome may be particularly susceptible to internalising societal ideals associated with beauty and normalised bodies. Saha et al. (2014) reported how children with Down syndrome in their study exhibited a strong preference for dolls without any disabilities.

The openness of the children’s responses suggests how unguarded children can be when provided with safe discussion spaces and appropriate stimuli. The information gathered has provided a rich foundation on which the early years practitioner can start to build a disability awareness programme. With regards to children’s honesty about diversity, Wilkins et al. (2016) also found how some children readily voiced judgemental comments when shown characters with disabilities in books. However, the children quickly switched to expected responses aligned to moral principles promoted in diversity education and anti-bullying initiatives. Wilkins et al. (2016) suggest that the children corrected themselves because of the adages they had been taught such as, ‘Be kind to others’, ‘Don’t judge others’, and that any other response would be considered inappropriate. In contrast, the children in the present study did not amend their responses. This might have been because the children had undertaken the activity on an individual basis with a young classroom assistant who was considered to hold less authority than the class teacher.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates, as many early years practitioners appreciate, that when provided with fun and familiar opportunities children open up and present authentic views. As also found by other researchers (Horgan 2017; Saha et al. 2014; Srinivasan and Cruz 2015) the study shows how diversity dolls can help create safe spaces to engage in conversations about complex social topics with young children. Although many children in the current study were positive about the dolls with disabilities, perceptions were predominantly associated with the medical model; deficit thinking related to feelings of pity, dependency, assistive devices and social consequences. Views generally centred around overgeneralising what people with a disability cannot do and how support from others is required for people with disabilities to function in daily routines, although perceptions about dancing suggest that on-screen entertainment might be making a positive impact on children’s belief structures. The study also exposed how some children held particularly discriminatory views about the dolls which had diverse facial features. During the free play session some children enacted powerful scenarios where dolls without disabilities bullied the dolls with disabilities. This is problematic as negative perceptions are likely to impact children’s interactions leading to unfair treatment of their peers with disabilities (Broomhead 2019; Chatzitheochari, Parsons, and Platt 2016). Furthermore, if left unchallenged misunderstandings and hostile views will further perpetuate the stigma and social inequalities frequently encountered by people with disabilities.

This study has fulfilled its aim – to elicit children’s spontaneous thoughts about people with disabilities rather than presenting adult practitioners with ‘politically correct’ responses. The knowledge gained has provided a foundation on which to build a disability awareness programme to tackle children’s early social prejudices. In addition to ethnicity/race and gender, which are prominent features of diversity and inclusion programs, it is essential that young children have greater exposure of disability issues. Key to promoting children’s understanding and acceptance of people with disabilities is the provision of first-person narratives and regular and purposeful sociable encounters (Jones 2021). Where direct contact is not possible, exposure to high-quality resources (e.g. persona dolls, books, videos), which portray accurate and positive representations of people with disabilities and are based around topics children can relate to can also be effective (Armstrong et al. 2016; Symeonidou and Loizou 2018; Wilkins et al. 2016). Finally, as this study has illustrated, it is essential that practitioners provide young children with safe discussion spaces to unearth their innermost views about disability and provide opportunities to enter into critical dialogue to deconstruct ableist discourses about how the human body should look and function, power relations, social inequalities, and the damaging impact of stereotypes and prejudiced views.

Limitations

There are some limitations to this paper. Firstly, the paper might be regarded incomplete when measured against comparative research as it has not reported on any intervention to counteract children’s social biases. However, the purpose of the study was to capture children’s authentic views regarding disability using a familiar and open method, rather than children feeling pressured into offering politically correct views to adults. Social justice/diversity education, which forms part of social and moral education in many early year’s settings, means that children typically know how they are expected to behave towards others. Therefore, this study should be perceived as the planning stage to a disability awareness programme for young children. By understanding children’s unfiltered perceptions and stereotypical beliefs regarding disability practitioners will be better informed of the educational content and pedagogical approaches required for intervention.

The diversity dolls and assistive devices are likely to have steered the children’s conversations. All dolls had been dressed in similar clothing (jogging pants and T-shirt), remained genderless and were baby dolls apart from the doll with Downs syndrome. This doll, which had been purchased from an official early year’s education supplier, had hair and looked older. It could explain why this doll was ranked by the children as being the most likely to be the best at football. Similarly, of the assistive devices accompanying three of the dolls, the wheelchair was significantly more popular as the children could physically move it, which might have skewed their attention to the doll with the mobility impairment. Furthermore, although the questions asked of the children were short and used uncomplicated language, they were adult oriented and thus focused on aspects the adult researchers considered to be important. However, at the end of the activity the children were invited to add anything else they had to say about the diversity dolls and disability.

More information is required about each child’s direct experience of different disabilities before participating in the activity. Although the study occurred before any formal intervention on disability was undertaken there was no clear understanding of the children's experiences of disabilities in relation to their home environments. A longitudinal study monitoring the views of the children who had been particularly negative during the diversity doll activity, after they had later participated in a disability awareness programme, would help to determine whether there had been a positive attitudinal shift.

Finally, due to central principles of first-person accounts and the accurate portrayal of people with disabilities, DSE scholars might contest the simulated approach generated using diversity dolls. However, diversity dolls are commonly used in early years settings to introduce children to aspects of human diversity and are highly effective for shifting children’s stereotypical views and prejudiced behaviours towards minority groups (Srinivasan and Cruz 2015). Although the dolls were used as a tool to explore children’s unfiltered belief systems, it is advised that future intervention draw upon DSE ideology and involve pedagogical approaches suggested by scholars such as Derman-Sparks and Edwards (2010) and Lalvani and Bacon (2019).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).