Question
Asked 5th Feb, 2016

What are the psychological reasons the child age of 5 to 10 years mostly break the toys after playing few days..?

I was thinking the creative thinking of the child from his birth How the observe the things and when they reach up 2 to 3 years of age they start asking of Questions from their parents Like Scientists why,who and how...?And I observe most of children break the toys after playing few days But I can't find the complete answer So I want to try ask the Question from the Researcher for A better Answer And Finding the conclusion...

Most recent answer

24th Jan, 2021
Sylvia Labauve
Tulsa Community College
I think that if you are trying to interpret it in a positive manner, maybe the child is science oriented and is exploring the materials. Conducting experiments, learning cause and effect of different actions with different items.

Popular Answers (1)

6th Feb, 2016
Rathish Nair
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna
Hi Allaudin
Breaking toys after playing with them for few days may not have any hidden psychological predisposition except the 5 to 10 years old's curiosity in exploring the functioning of the toys! beacuse since they have already played with them for few days they might be exploring further possibility and in the process ends up breaking them
regards
Rathish
3 Recommendations

All Answers (8)

6th Feb, 2016
Rathish Nair
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna
Hi Allaudin
Breaking toys after playing with them for few days may not have any hidden psychological predisposition except the 5 to 10 years old's curiosity in exploring the functioning of the toys! beacuse since they have already played with them for few days they might be exploring further possibility and in the process ends up breaking them
regards
Rathish
3 Recommendations
6th Feb, 2016
Allauddin Memon Kohistani
University of Sindh
Thanx for answering I also believe in that philosophy some time ago but  When try to find the facts I wonder on the nature in Reality there more hidden truths than that There huge psychological reason behind It.....I hope also you will try to find.....The question debut able and  I believe Every child has especial capabilities and that is the reality..........................................................And I want some research or research papers on the topic..............
8th Feb, 2016
Adrian Mozejko
Cheap toys aside, it could be due to a suppression or repression of  anger, or, frustration, or even attention seeking behavior. You could also ask them and go from there
1 Recommendation
8th Feb, 2016
Allauddin Memon Kohistani
University of Sindh
Adrian Mozejko thanks for answering .........But I'm thinking positively and Creative thinking of the child.........
8th Feb, 2016
D.E. Morant
Independent
Perhaps the child is thinking - how strong am I, can I break this toy?  tho speaking from my own experience my daughters did not break their toys. Perhaps it is something in the mind of the boy? or, perhaps, as noted above, the toys are cheap. Since that is a possibility, might it be better to rephrase the question and focus on a type of toy? plastic/wood/many parts/few parts etc?
9th Feb, 2016
Allauddin Memon Kohistani
University of Sindh
D.E. Morant Thanx for Answering I'm feeling glade knowing the different observation But The debates continues I want more knowledge and observation  And Really the huge mystery behind the scenes about the breaking of toys....
10th Feb, 2016
Brittany Saggau
Wilfrid Laurier University
Children love finding new purposes for objects and are very good at it, which may in some cases mean breaking toys to create something new or get a new experience from it. Also, children are scientists they seek to determine if they can recreate the same experience in different settings or using different tools. They will want to see if the toy car rolls as well under water as it does on the hardwood floor, or listen to hear if a Barbie makes the same sound on a drum set as a drum stick. This is based on my work in the early years field observing children and on research. Though, I am no expert.
1 Recommendation

Similar questions and discussions

How do I estimate reliability for multilevel data in R?
Question
17 answers
  • Oliver WeigeltOliver Weigelt
Researchers in the social sciences have to report some measure of reliability. Standard statistics packages provide functions to calculate (Cronbach's) Alpha or procedures to estimate (MacDonalds) Omega in straightforward way. However, things become a bit more complicated when your data have a nested structure. For instance, in experience sampling research (ESM) researchers usually have self-reports or observations nested in persons. In this case, Geldhof et al. (2014) suggest that reliability be estimated for each level of analysis separately. Albeit this is easy to do with commerical packages like MPlus, R users face some challenges. To the best of my knowledge most multilevel packages in R do not provide a function to estimate reliability at the within vs. the between person level of analysis (e.g., misty or multilevel).
So far, I have been using a tool created by Francis Huang (2016) which works fine for Alpha. However, more and more researchers prefer (MacDonalds) Omega instead (e.g., Hayes & Coutts, 2020).
After working with workarounds for years I accidentially found that the R package semTools provides a function to estimate multilevel Alpha, different variants of Omega, and average variance extracted for multilevel data. I would like to use this post to share this with anyone struggling with estimation of multilevel reliability in R.
I find this post helpful, feel free to let me know.
Oliver
Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
Huang, F. L. (2016). Conducting multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using R. http://faculty.missouri.edu/huangf/data/mcfa/MCFAinRHUANG.pdf
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Yanagida, T. (2020). misty: Miscellaneous Functions „T. Yanagida“ (0.3.2) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=misty
How do I correct for phylogenetic nonindependence between a binary/multistate categorical variable (independent) and a continuous depedent variable?
Question
3 answers
  • Panagiotis ProvatarisPanagiotis Provataris
Dear community,
I am rather new to phylogenetic comparative methods and seek your advice.
I want to compare a continuous trait (dependent) between species belonging to either groupA and groupB (groupA and groupB are two states of a categorical binary trait in this case). Using traditional statistics, a Mann-Whitney U test lets me reject the null hypothesis, as clearly the trait values of groupA tend to be greater than the trait values of groupB (see attached plot).
However, how can I implement a phylogenetic correction into the above analysis? I have already performed a PGLS and calculated phyogenetic signal for the regression using Pagel's lambda in ape/nlme (lambda-0.98). I have found that the traits evolve according to the phylogeny, as after performing a likelihood ratio test I found that the calculated lambda is not different than lambda=1.
My question is how do i go on from that point to test whether the trait values are different between groupA and groupB, taking into account the phylogenetic nonindepednence of the traits?
I understand that if the lambda of the regression would not be significantly different compared to lambda = 0, then I could just treat the trait values of each species as independent data points, but I do not understand how to compare trait values between the two groups if 0<lambda<1 or if lambda=1 (which is the case in this example).
Thank you for your time and your patience!
P.S. What do I do if instead of just groupA and groupB I have an additional 2 groups (groupC and groupD).
I have understood that using software like mcmcPGLMM might be a good idea for doing what I want, but I seem to hardly understand anything from the documentation
Theoretical assumptions for correlating errors during SEM
Discussion
4 replies
  • Artem ZadorozhnyyArtem Zadorozhnyy
My question is connected to rather unclear point of error correlation that many scholars encounter while conducting their SEM analysis. It is pretty often when scholars report procedures of correlating the error terms to enhance the overall goodness of fit for their models. Hermida (2015), for instance, provided an in-depth analysis for such issue and pointed out that there are many cases within social sciences studies when researchers do not provide appropriate justification for the error correlation. I have read in Harrington (2008) that the measurement errors can be the result of similar meaning or close to the meanings of words and phrases in the statements that participants are asked to assess. Another option to justify such correlation was connected to longitudinal studies and a priori justification for the error terms which might be based on the nature of study variables.
In my personal case, I have two items with Modification indices above 20.
lhs op rhs mi epc sepc.lv sepc.all sepc.nox
12 item1 ~~ item2 25.788 0.471 0.471 0.476 0.476
After correlating the errors, the model fit appears just great (Model consists of 5 latent factors of the first order and 2 latent factors of the first order; n=168; number of items: around 23). However, I am concerned with how to justify the error terms correlations. In my case the wording of two items appear very similar: With other students in English language class I feel supported (item 1) and With other students in English language class I feel supported (item 2)(Likert scale from 1 to 7). According to Harrington (2008) it's enough to justify the correlation between errors.
However, I would appreciate any comments on whether justification of similar wording of questions seems enough for proving error correlations.
Any further real-life examples of wording the items/questions or articles on the same topic are also well-appreciated.

Related Publications

Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.