ABSTRACT
Children’s storybooks often contain fantasy elements, from dragons and wizards to anthropomorphic animals that wear clothes, talk, and behave like humans. These elements can impact children’s learning from storybooks both positively and negatively, perhaps due in part to their ability to capture children’s interest and attention. Prior research has found that children prefer realistic to make-believe stories, but little is known about children’s preferences for anthropomorphic characters. The present study examines U.S. children’s preferences for fantasy and anthropomorphism in storybooks. Seventy-two 4- to 6-year-old children (M = 65.74 months, SD = 10.84 months) were presented with 10 pairs of books (fantasy/anthropomorphic vs. realistic) and asked to select which book they liked better and why. Children chose fantasy but not anthropomorphic animal stories significantly more often than expected by chance. Children’s preferences were not related to age or gender, and they most often justified their choices with references to the storyline. Implications for creating and selecting media are discussed, since children learn best when learning materials align with their interests.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant #R305B140026 to the Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. During this research, SE and JT were pre-doctoral fellows of the International Max Planck Research School on the Life Course. We thank the families who participated; the Virginia Discovery Museum; Elizabeth Beverly, Michelle Cox, Justin Lagbo, Taylor Morgan, Miranda Pfister, Evelyn Powell, and Cameron Sims for ideas for the study design; and Sydney Bowden, Mary Kenzakowski, Amber Liller, Sydney Ploeger, and Parsa Salehi for assistance with data collection and coding.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).